Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

henryinnash I just saw this on Netflix, so I don't have the benefit of watching the DVD 'Extras' other reviewers mention as almost making the rental worthwhile. But, and I guess this qualifies as a spoiler alert, the ONLY reason I would recommend sitting through the piece of crap is to see Kelly Clarkson (yes, THE Kelly Clarkson) have a painful acting experience cameo at a fraternity party. Makes her performance in 'From Justin to Kelly' look Academy Award worthy. Oh, and why is a 35 year old man trying to be an 18 year old college freshman pledging a fraternity anyway? Pitiful, just pitiful. And since I'm new to doing an IMDb 'review', I didn't realize its supposed to be a minimum of 10 lines of text, so I wrote this last line just to squeak by that rule. The movie doesn't deserve 10 lines.

eslgr8 I've seen very good, even excellent, low budget gay themed films which despite low ratings from some IMDb.com users, nonetheless show talent and imagination and ingenuity by the cast and filmmakers. Issues 101 is however the work of a writer-director (John Lincoln III) whose supreme lack of talent is at the level of the infamous Ed Wood. There is not a moment of credibility in this mess of a movie. Michaael Rozman, the above the title lead, is 10 years too old for the part and does not for a moment convince the viewer that he is gay. On the other hand, Dennis W. Rittenhouse Jr., has not a moment of believability as a straight man, even one who is "straight with issues." That anyone other than a hopelessly smitten girlfriend would doubt for a minute that he's as gay as a goose is beyond belief. Bad casting from the get-go. There's also an excruciatingly bad "performance" by Gary Castro Churchwell as the fraternity president. Faring much better are Jeremy Smith and Trevor Murphy, who are charming and believable in their supporting roles. But a couple of supporting performances do not a good film make. (Oh, Kelly Clarkson does make a cameo appearance in the film--for a full 11 seconds!) Another IMDb.com user has commented on the incredible scene in which fraternity brother Todd invites total stranger Joe to his house for beers and is then shocked when Joe assumes he's gay. (Who wouldn't?) But this is nothing compared to the scene in which the viewer learns that in this fraternity, pledges are forced to perform oral sex on eager fraternity brothers while in the same room another pledge is paddled bare bottomed. A gay porn fantasy, absolutely, but I didn't buy it for a moment, and from that point on, nothing was believable, if it had been slightly so before then.There is some full frontal nudity by Naked Boys Singing original cast member Michael Haboush (certainly hired just because he was willing to show his goodies) though Rittenhouse, while cute enough to do gay porn, keeps his hand over said goodies and is otherwise shot from the back. Jeff Sublett, as Rittenhouse's gay younger brother, is also a cutie, but exposes less.I can't say I hated watching this movie. I might watch it again just to marvel at it's horribleness (and to check out a few of the cuties again).I don't regret buying it for the above reasons, but those who have better things to do with their money would be better off renting, or skipping this untalented writer/director's first, and hopefully last, film.(I truly doubt that the 10 star reviews posted here were written by anyone other than someone connected with this film.)

ninetyninedegrees almost anyone with any kind of budget can make an alleged 'movie'. And that generally for the better. There's been some creative low budget gems. "Two Brothers", made for under $600 Canadian is a good example. "The Journey of Jared Price", shot in 5 days with a budget of $30,00 is a great little movie. Unfortunately, Issues 101 pales by comparison. My mouth open in aghast, I kept thinking I was watching someone's home movie. A bad home movie, with bad casting, little to no acting ability . . . oh, it's easier to summarize by saying nothing, absolutely nothing works in this . . . digital video footage. It doesn't deserve to be called a movie, or be listed in IMDb. It's only redeeming value may be to be watched by aspiring actors and/or directors to see what NOT to do. On the other hand, I will keep an eye out for Dennis W. Rittenhouse, who plays Christian, in porn. Nice face and body, and the simulated sex scenes in which he bottomed where the only times he seemed comfortable in his role.

junebuginAugust Yes, I've seen this, and yes, I think it is awful. However, if you want to see what a bad film is and learn what NOT to do, I would definitely recommend this. Kelly Clarkson is among the very few good-looking people in this movie, unfortunately. The best thing I can say about this film is that it made me laugh...one of those laughing at it, not with it deals, you know what I mean. Rent it, and I'm sure you'll go through all the physical motions, including laughter, nausea, diahrrea, anger, disappointment, more nausea, some laughter, and finally, you'll be happy (because it's over).