"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film tries to skewer the studio era in Hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. Guy Stone is intended to be a Rock Hudson type, but both the script and actor Matt Letscher end up channeling a smarmy, cruel, baritone-voiced version of George Hamilton instead, which makes for an unpleasant character.
Guy Stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. Unlike Hudson, who was sweetly promiscuous, Stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet, handsome young men who share his bed every few hours.
Veronica Cartwright is Jerry, Stone's celibate lesbian manager. Cartwright is very good, but the director doesn't quite know what to do with her. The fault lies in the dialogue, which is a bit clumsy, and the film suffers for it.
Carrie Preston's Sally owes more to Ellen Greene in \"The Little Shop of Horrors\". As written, Preston's Sally is good for a laugh but little else. Newcomer Adam Greer is lost in this movie. He cannot act, and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks.
Like many recent films, \"Straight-Jacket\" is a \"dramedy\" -- a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two-thirds of the way through the film. And, like almost all dramedies, \"Straight-Jacket\" fails miserably.
Despite the expensive services of Skywalker Sound, the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. The over-use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well.
The film really doesn't managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. Unlike \"Singin' in the Rain,\" which perfectly captures Hollywood's ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films, \"Straight-Jacket\" doesn't manage to depict Hollywood in the 1950s at all well. The dialogue, sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead-on stereotypes of the 1950s Hollywood. The same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores, social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. Compare the transformation of Guy's home to the dead-on satire of the 1950s home in \"Little Shop of Horrors\". There is no comparison; \"Little Shop\" hits the nail on the head, while \"Straight-Jacket\" doesn't even know there is a nail.
Motivations, too, seem haphazard. Rick Foster is supposed to be a principled liberal, yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like Guy Stone. Rick is fine with Guy's closeted status for many months. But when it comes time to go to Italy, he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. And even though Sally appears to fall in love with Freddie during the party, this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. Rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s, not a gay author of the 1950s. Indeed, modern morality suffuses this film -- which it shouldn't, if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s Hollywood.
Plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. Saul repeatedly says that he's going to turn Freddie Stevens over to the feds, but never does so -- allowing Freddie to out Guy. Jerry and Saul's plot to \"in\" Guy never makes any sense, nor does Sally's sudden decision to take the blame. And although Guy has admitted he is a homosexual, apparently it doesn't matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway.
Unfortunately, none of the production values manage to save this film. The cinematography by Michael Pinkey is pedestrian. At times, the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in Saul's office). Everything is restricted to medium shots, and the film has an incredibly static. The editing by Chris Conlee doesn't do the film any help, either. Long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close-ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. Whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear, but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy.
The film relies heavily on CGI effects of Guy's home, created by visual effect designer Thomas Dickens. But the CGI looks clumsy and hokey, and it is very noticeably amateurish.
My overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy, the plot muddled, the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark, the satire nonexistent, the performances overbroad and off the mark, and the comic timing off. It's almost an amateurish film. It is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"