User Reviews

Unfortunately, this film should be mandatory viewing for film makers, so that they can see what mistakes NOT to make in their films.

Issues 101 has real problems. As a romantic drama it's a failure. Seeing this film only a few hours after watching Andy Warhol's Trash led me to question why Trash is so riveting (albeit in a sick car-crash sort of way) while Issues 101 required real force of will to watch to the bitter end.

Neither film has well scripted dialogue and yet they couldn't be more different in their audience impact. One is fascinating to watch and one is painful to watch.

Somehow in Trash we see beyond the flaws and imperfections and see that there is truth (in this case what it must have really been like to be in a dead end relationship with a junkie in late 60's NYC)

In Issues 101, we see no such truth. The reality of the digital video contrasts wildly with the inane dialogue (lacking in both sense and substance). The result is an insipid film lacking in truth, excitement or interest. The flaws were so off-putting as to keep yanking the viewer back to the `real world' and not allowing for the willing suspension of disbelief that works for most films.

The REAL problem for me with Issues 101 is that it gives me a terrible case of the `might-have-beens.' For the most part the actors were pleasing to the eye and the ideas presented in the story could have been told so much better.

On the surface, a story about a fraternity pledge that somehow gets through a chink in his frat brother's straight façade, the frat brother setting the pledge up with his younger fraternal gay brother to take some of the pressure off, and the jealousy that ensues are all great plot elements. However in this film almost none of it works. The sex with the supposedly straight brother goes way too far without an adequate `gosh was I drunk set-up'. The whirlwind speed with which the pledge and the younger brother get seriously involved happens way too quickly. And finally the pledge causing all these issues is neither handsome enough nor charming enough to make us believe that either brother would be interested in him.

To make matters worse there were scenes that were totally unmotivated and others that were totally unnecessary.

I understand that this film ran out of money near the end and so much was lost in the director's vision but overall what was left is nearly unwatchable and actually painful to sit through.

This movie was amazingly bad. The characters were cardboard, the script was painfully poorly written, and to top it off, the story (and I use that word loosely) was boring. Also, I had the feeling I was watching home movie by someone who had a video camera handy and a few hours to spare. Having watched several of the recent gay themed movies, and in spite of the fact that many of them have also had limited budgets, several of the others were able to pull the viewer into a story with the element of drama, emotion and a connection to the characters. Most of the time spent watching Issues 101, I couldn't keep enough interest to see if the story was in fact going anywhere, nor did I really care what happened to any of these characters. So regardless of budget, this film could have been made so much better. Enough said.

Okay, just like most of the other reviewers, I can find very little positive to say. Joe was too old to be a "frat boy". Christian was so obviously flaming gay I'm surprised he didn't spontaneous combust on screen. the set was obviously an empty house rented for the feature because no frat house is gonna have all those empty walls, and empty bookshelves. Some of the scenes, everyone was crowded very tightly. there was no chemistry between ANY of the players. the music and lyrics was laughable. The Pi Pi Rho house was just a wall with people standing in front of it. The Sig fraternity president was go gay there's no way anyone could NOT know that he was. the "hazing" incident, while kinda hot in a gay porn kind of way, was entirely unbelievable. The pace was plodding and slow and then suddenly rushed. The movie ending left the whole thing feeling incomplete. I read on here they ran out of money, that probably explains that.

I gave it a two just because some of the actors are very easy on the eyes, and there's some nice ass shots, as well as one sorta hot sex scene and few full frontals (or maybe just one, i forget actually).

I would not rent this. I certainly wouldn't buy it under any circumstances. I think whoever made this film had the best of intentions at heart. unfortunately, best intentions do NOT a good movie make.

Issues 101 is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, with absolutely no redeeming values except for a few shots of some nice boy ass, and proves once again that anyone with a cheap video cam and a few friends can make a film. Not only is the story absurd and the acting so amateurish that it rivals the worst kindergarten play, but the characters are so stereotyped that gay and straight people alike will be offended by the depiction of the characters. It was like watching a train wreck; I could not avert my eyes and I was horrified the entire time. God only knows why I watched the whole movie. Most gay actors are capable of portraying straight men with no problem; these guys were not. The gay characters were total flames, vapid and shallow and able to fall in love and have their hearts broken in the time it takes most of us to enjoy a good meal. The so-called straight characters were not far behind. One expected them all to drop their pants at any given moment and have an orgy in the fraternity house. To wit, did the writer, director or any of the people involved in the making of this trash ever go to college or ever go inside a fraternity house??? Quite frankly, I've seen more convincing acting and stories in gay porn films.

In short, I cannot say enough bad things about this piece of garbage and would exhort any reader to avoid this movie like the plague.

I saw this film on HERE. There is NO "here" here. Filmed on what looked like videotape, this is a new low in gay-themed story telling. Unbelievable on every level. I fast forwarded through most of it, though the "actor" playing Christian was an eye-candy respite. The movie left me with "issues". Why did I ever watch it? Poorly written, poorly acted, poorly filmed, miscast lead, incredible story line - and these are its GOOD points! Caveat emptor. To sum up: an average looking gay Joe goes to college and is immediately inducted into a "straight" fraternity(my gaydar went off the screen)after some preposterous gay hazing. Love blooms, conflict occurs, the green monster appears, all ends happily (questionable), and everyone dances off on the yellow brick road. I can't wait for the sequel.

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).

ISSUES 101? So did I miss the other 100 volumes in this series? If so, THANK YOU! I just know there is a hardcore gay porn cut of this vid out there somewhere. If you find a copy, do me a favor and cut out all the boring, talky parts first. This vid has the worst dialogue ever made up during Rush Week. The actors are cute enough, sure - but the word 'acting' should be omitted from their resumes. The videography isn't awful - it's worse. One scene is shot against a flat stucco wall, and another against a pane of windows reflecting the glare of the minimal camera lights. I played a fun game while watching ISSUES 101 (No, not that! Dirty-minded IMDb users!) - I pretended I was on a gay version of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"! I cracked myself up! It was fab! As for ISSUES, I just hope there isn't a 102.

The comments I have seen are shockingly childish and makes it obvious that you people do not see very many independent films at all! You want to see a bad film, watch Leather Jacket Love Story or Visions of Sugar Plums, or worst yet, The Forrest Song. Issues 101 is a great title, a great idea, and though it would have been great had there been a budget, it was great entertainment. I liked the original props and costumes, as well as the story. It was different in a great way. It is difficult to make a film, I just wonder how many films the previous writers have made? So the producers and actors and crew who worked on Issues 101, good luck, I know you all will make another film, and congratulations on being entered in so many film festivals (I don't know exactly how many there are, but saw that there were many on the poster).

Rent this movie for the special features! Now, this IS the single worst movie I have ever seen; it looks like it was made with a home camcorder, the acting is terrible, the plot is stupid, the characters are hollow, the script is inane, and the sex is gratuitous and poorly done. But the compelling reason to rent this DVD are the actor interviews in the Special Features, which are like a Christopher Guest movie come to life. The "actors" self-serious comments about their "work" are hilarious, and truly worth the rental. Their unintentionally deadpan delivery, filled with "ums" and pauses, after which they completely contradict the inane statement that came before, are Christopher Guest at his best, only they are real. For anyone who thinks Mr. Guest just makes his characters up, rent this movie. True, the interviews are funnier if you have watched the movie, but that would be such a painful task that you can watch the bonus material by itself.

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.

This is SO bad, and yet mysteriously enjoyable on some level. When I am not guffawing at the plot "twists," I am mesmerized by the miscasting. The age spread for college youth is abysmal. Joe looks old enough to be faculty.

Highlights for me include: 1. The musical sequences. 2. The ship on the door of the frat house. 3. Every time Steve pulls out "the book." 4. The dogma. 5. The bird track.

Get some crackers and your favorite processed cheese spread and give this sick puppy another viewing. Invite some friends over. It could be a great theme party. If you have a camcorder you and your guests could shoot a sequel. Don't forget the bird track.

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.)

WARNING: MY review may contain spoilage of plot points in the movie. Do not read if you are sensitive to knowing aspects of the movie.



Firstly, the story title does match the movie. However, there was no story at all to tell. The movie circles around a bunch of people and there is no way to tell who the main character is or what that main character wants to do. I missed the point of what the director was trying to convey to the audience, if there was a point.

What can one say but. . . .why? Why did these film makers hate us all so much? Why did they spend money on this? Why did they think this was a good idea? Why did the actors do it? *Sigh* It made my head hurt, it made my stomach sick, and it made me want to tear out my own eyes. I hope no one ever has to see it. It would make a good "In Flight" movie, on the plane to Hell! But if you insist on seeing it, enjoy!

The basic plot isn't bad, it's also not original. The dialogue is bad, the acting is pretty terrible and the production values are practically nonexistent. Lots of script errors and unexplained circumstances.

I'm sure the actors are all really nice people, maybe even talented but they are miscast and their line delivery is pretty bad. There is absolutely no chemistry on screen between the actors. Why is Joe so much older than the other actors that are supposed to be his age or older? It's funny that one moment Joe is arriving at college for the first time and decides to pledge a frat... and before you know it he's running for student body president.

I also found the brother situation a little uncomfortable. I know my brother never hugged me like that-- thank God! It started creepy and then just became more embarrassingly unbelievable. Did Christian really think he wasn't setting up Joe with his gay brother? This film is camp but not in a good way. I never understand when a film casts 'straight frat boys' that come across as gay. This makes their comments about their feelings on gay sexuality a little offensive.

The acting might not seem so bad if they had received some actual direction. Instead, it all comes off as awkward and uncomfortable.

From the beginning this goes from bad to worse. Don't waste your time on this one.

I love gay themed movies but this is an exception... so bad. I thought that was Kelly Clarkson in the movie and it was! That was my only surprise. The guys in the fraternity are suppose to be straight but doing oral on one another is another story. And for the one guy who's suppose to be straight getting banged is his next best hobby. At least there was a little eye candy though. If you're gay or bi and want to go to college at least there's a fun fraternity I can recommend. Say hello to Kelly for me. I've already typed 5 lines I don't know why it won't take my review, I've said enough.

Love the fraternity story - seemed real to me - and love the hot guys! The fraternity boys are realistically played, especially the actor playing Mike (very real and nicely played by Jeff S). Wish I could have seen it on the big screen. Hope to see more fraternity type movies. Was curious where it was shot. Liked the meeting scene - very real! Enjoying seeing the growth of the character Joe who comes out, not only to himself but also to the campus. Also just loved the frat brat music at the end - want to meet the composer. I had rented this movie, but am thinking that I would like to buy it - the pool table sex scene was very delightfully done - thanks guys!

For whatever it's worth....I'm considering casting Janet Harvick in my animation "live action" comedy feature film. She deserves a great project...and a chance to prove her acting abilities. I have several features to shoot within the next 3 years and I'll be happy to cast her in any she wishes! I have a sci-fi series (short stories) and an action adventure feature....along with a sequel to my animation live action comedy (I have talent attached)and several other projects in creative development. I'm easy to reach (through my assistant Stacie Oakley)Keep the smile Janet....wishes and dreams do come true! Best wishes and dreams; C.Kasper

I just can't think of anything good to say about this film, since I really don't know what it was trying to say or be. If it was supposedly soft-core porn (and there was a bit of nudity and simulated man-on-man sex) then why didn't they just add more sex scenes with good looking actors? The "frat boys" were ridiculously miscast, as they were aging, effeminate, hairy, balding jewish guys (notice; I didn't use the word "actor", since none of the participants here are actually actors). The "plot" of a closeted frat brother really didn't make much sense, since apparently man-on-man sex wasn't a big deal in this particular fraternity. Yes, I get it; that's a big fantasy for a lot of guys...but you might as well save yourself the time and effort and just rent a porno if that's what you are hoping for.