this film try to skewer the studio era in hollywood and the moral of the 1950s . guy stone be intend to be a rock hudson type and but both the script and actor matt letscher end up channel a smarmy and cruel and baritone voiced version of george hamilton instead and which make for an unpleasant character . guy stone be such a reprehensible human be that the audience have trouble like this waste of human skin . unlike hudson and who be sweetly promiscuous and stone be a hateful person who knowingly us and then throw away the sweet and handsome young men who share his bed every few hour . veronica cartwright be jerry and stone celibate lesbian manager . cartwright be very good and but the director doesn not quite know what to do with her . the fault lie in the dialogue and which be a bit clumsy and and the film suffers for it . carrie preston sally owe more to ellen greene in the little shop of horror . a write and preston sally be good for a laugh but little else . newcomer adam greer be lose in this movie . he can not act and and seem to have be cast for his hot body and good look . like many recent film and straight jacket be a dramedy a comedy film which switch messily to a drama about two third of the way through the film . and and like almost all dramedies and straight jacket fail miserably . despite the expensive service of skywalker sound and the sound quality of the film leave a lot of be desire . the over use of the musical soundtrack create a distract amount of cue a well . the film really doesn not manage to satirize anything about the 1950s . unlike singin in the rain and which perfectly capture hollywood ambivalence about the advent of sound as well a the studio mentality about formula film and straight jacket doesn not manage to depict hollywood in the 1950s at all well . the dialogue and set and behavior of the key character be nondescript rather than dead on stereotype of the 1950s hollywood . the same can be say for the lampooning of the general more and social trend and fad of the 1950s a a whole . compare the transformation of guy home to the dead on satire of the 1950s home in little shop of horror . there be no comparison while little shop hit the nail on the head and while straight jacket doesn not even know there be a nail . motivation and too and seem haphazard . rick foster be suppose to be a principled liberal and yet he fall almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like guy stone . rick be fine with guy closet status for many month . but when it come time to go to italy and he become conflict for reason that be completely unclear . and even though sally appear to fall in love with freddie during the party and this plot point simply disappear a few minute later without comment . rick come off like a gay man from the 1990s and not a gay author of the 1950s . indeed and modern morality suffuse this film which it shouldn not and if it be really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s hollywood . plot hole in this ragtag film also abound . saul repeatedly say that he go to turn freddie stevens over to the fed and but never do so allow freddie to out guy . jerry and saul plot to in guy never make any sense and nor do sally sudden decision to take the blame . and although guy have admit he be a homosexual and apparently it doesn not matter and he end up a famous star and playwright anyway . unfortunately and none of the production value manage to save this film . the cinematography by michael pinkey be pedestrian . at time and the film almost look like a filmed play rather than a motion picture ( especially the scene in saul office ) . everything be restrict to medium shot and and the film have an incredibly static . the editing by chris conlee doesn not do the film any help and either . long scene which would benefit from the insertion of close ups or shift in point of view remain uncut . whether this be due to lack of coverage or bad editing be not clear and but the overall effect be to create a sense of lethargy . the film rely heavily on cgi effect of guy home and create by visual effect designer thomas dickens . but the cgi look clumsy and hokey and and it be very noticeably amateurish . my overall impression of this film be that the joke be cheap and easy and the plot muddle and the characterization wildly inconsistent and way off the mark and the satire nonexistent and the performance overbroad and off the mark and and the comic timing off . it almost an amateurish film . it be a if someone take a high school production and throw $ 10 million at it .