hddu10 There is very little one can say that's good about this film...other than to say "yeah...I guess it's a film?" The acting is laughably bad (they seem to have used any/all characters from John Waters' early works as the standard). The premise is one of a futuristic "big brother" type of doomsday scenario...only the budget is too small for anything other than the occasional CGI effects on monitors to get this point across (wait...that implies there was a point). The man-boy love premise pervasive throughout this film seems more like a NAMBLA recruitment tactic than an actual plot-line. The writer/director/"star" seems to believe anyone cares to see him naked is probably the biggest fantasy in this film. No wait...the second biggest fantasy, since I just read the reviews and there are actually people giving this 10 stars...apparently thinking we don't know they are somehow attached to the film or actors.In sum, unless you too are a creepy old man who fantasizes about scenarios where it could possibly be acceptable to seduce and sleep with the boy next door...just don't watch this.

jm10701 If you, like Paul Bright, are turned on by the sight of middle-aged Paul Bright strutting naked, with everything flopping free, before a boy he's just met, young enough to be his grandson... and a few minutes later the two of them making out naked (both of them, this time) in bed (obviously the strutting worked its irresistibly sexy magic - but he IS the director, after all, AND the writer), then this is the movie you've been waiting for.I've forced myself to watch Bright's first four movies because his relentless determination to make them despite huge obstacles fascinated me, but this is the last. He has no talent. A monster ego, but not one drop of talent anywhere.Low budgets have nothing to do with it. Masterpieces have been made for a fraction of what a Bright movie costs to make - Shane Carruth made Primer for $5000, but Carruth has talent and Bright has none. Bright's movies do nothing but aggressively and artlessly push his absurdly narcissistic self-image and his nauseating libertarian fantasies of legalized drugs and uninhibited man-boy naked LOVE triumphing over diabolical government oppression and violent religious lunatics. They're extremely tiresome, like being harangued by an old, naked hippie.The fundamental requirement of ANY movie is that it be entertaining. Bright's movies obviously entertain him enormously, but they only irritate, bore and repulse me. In a DVD extra for his 2007 movie Theft, Bright said anybody who writes a negative review of his movies is "a bitter queen with an axe to grind". I guess that's me. I'd rather BE a bitter queen than watch another minute of his talentless egomaniacal crap.

henryshanks I hadn't read any reviews prior to watching it, so I had no expectations to start with.However, if you care for your faith in the human race and do not want to needlessly torture yourself with horrible gay grandfather fetish science-fiction, just watch something else. Why? Oh boy...The STORY if you can even call it that... is of a communist USA (still pretending to be democratic and have a president though) in the year 2029. People go around with chips in their arms, and those who have them removed are outlaws. I'm not sure why the theme sounds extremely familiar.The ACTING... eek. I'd be more believable telling my math teacher that the dog ate my homework for the 20th day in a row. As a highlight, check out the part when Mom and Gran find out Greg's in town. So. Many. Emotions!The DIRECTING... where do I even start? Half of the movie consists of people biking (Greg even does a splendid double-take!) or looking around. I especially liked the part where Greg and Danny stay in bed for 2 minutes.GREG deserves a separate section on his own, for being absolutely the most obnoxious. For one, he goes after his best friend Michael's son. Michael has absolutely no problem with it, by the way (USA, I pity you...). Morals aside, he's just as bad as actor, writer or director. All he did was write himself in a lot of naked scenes with a 20-year-old. If he craves "fresh meat", I'd recommend a different film-making industry. As it is, it's just disgusting. Yes, love transcends, but this is too much.How many people live in that... "town"(?). We see a grand total of SEVEN. Add two working at the train station and one moving boxes, but that still leaves us with less than twenty. I get it that it's low- budget, but they could at least invite their cousins or sisters to walk around in the background.What's the title even about? Ice melting and seawater rising? Really? What does that have to do with... never mind. Baffling? Wait until you hear Gran say something like "We don't own a spade, so we can't have a garden." I used to say "Shut Up and Kiss Me" was pathetic, but after watching "Altitude Falling", I have to admit I was wrong.On its own, the movie is not original in the slightest. Watch 1984 (future societies gone wrong), Milk (age difference), Gattaca (implanted chips/population control), Naked Boys Singing (unabashed nudity) or House of Wax (deserted towns with strange people). Your neurons will be grateful for not sentencing them to death.

Bill Shroyer Had the cast and crew seemed any less sincere in their efforts to make the best flick they could, I would probably tear a film like this to shreds. But more important to me than having the best of acting, props, effect, etc... etc... et... is to come away from the film with the feeling that it wasn't just thrown together and half-heartedly produced. I do think the producer - the kinda' cute older gent playing the lead - likes making these movies partially as an excuse to get to mess with young dudes, and find it amusing how he is utterly unafraid to let it all hang out in his flicks (literally). Even so, I don't get the impression that's the entirety of his motivation - that seems more like just one of the "perks" to him.That said, if you just want to know the pros and cons, here are my views on the matter:Pros: - Realistic, believable plot - I have little doubt that sooner or later, humans will be tagged in just such a way, and that sooner or later someone, somewhere is going to take advantage of it for their own tyrannical ambitions; - While all the effects were cheap, they weren't utterly absurd like they tend to be in most films of similar budget. This guy really seems to know how to make the most with practically nothing, and to make it believable. Not that there were a lot of really special effects - the CGI was bare-bones minimal - but the look, feel and functionality of the props (automated voice greetings, videoconferencing, one or two of the implants after they'd been removed & destroyed, etc...) were good; - A message that people really do need to hear, about a topic we're almost certain to face not too far from now; - Paul Bright's exposed booty.Cons: - Bad acting. Bad, bad, bad. At least for the most part. One or two of them were pretty good most all of the time, but all of them had their moments where they couldn't possibly have been any less believable. You really do have to just overlook it through much of the flick, so if that bothers you then you probably should avoid this one; - Unclear plot details - particularly regarding the man he video'd with and his boss lady. I understood the guy's role in the unseen back-story leading to the movie's current events, but not what he was supposed to be doing in the present and definitely not what role his boss lady was supposed to be playing; - Paul Bright's exposed booty. You're either going to like it or you're not, and after seeing similar in "Angora Ranch", it seems fairly clear he's just being exhibitionistic. I personally don't mind, but a lot of people would and so I figured you might as well hear about it now. It's not real frequent or anything, but for the short time it's there, it's _all_ "there", if you catch my drift.