Eden's Curve

Ugh! If that camera shook anymore I would have had to stay in bed for a couple of days to recuperate. The sleek camera angles they tried to use turned out to be nothing more then a burden to my EYES!! To many, they used them to many times. My partner actually looked to check when it was made because the acting came right out of a bad 70's porn movie. Joe was supposed to be the tortured soul, he tortured me. Either the actors were way over the top-"Billy" or way under-"Ian and Peter". The end of the movie made me wonder why they even finished it in the first place. I'm sure the director was going somewhere deep with this movie but that person forgot their glasses during shooting.

Okay, let's start with that this is a time piece of the 70s. Let's add this is a true story, God forbid, and taking place in rural Virginia. That's three strikes against this movie in my book.

Director and cinematographer Anne Misawa tells a tale so depressing that it really got me quite angry at the conclusion. There was no compassion, no thoughtful revelation and certainly no credit to human forgiveness. Instead of bringing some enlightenment to the tale, Miss Misawa decides to slap the viewer in the face and certainly increase homosexual distaste and violence. Thanks, Anne, for taking us back to the witch burning era. I'm sorry, even "The Crucible" had it's credibility and understanding. Check out "Latter Days" for this day and age gay stories of revelation.

Jamie Hall is credited as Assistant Director. Did he/she have any vote as to the process? The photography was sometimes impossible to follow. Mostly shot in fuzzy out of focus texture. What was this purpose? Except to make it hard to follow.

This is 2003 folks, not the 1800s. Certainly filming should have more quality than this. I hated the cinematography. Jerry Meadors and Hart Monroe can take the writing credits. Even though they make a point of saying at the end of the picture that it's based on true events, what is the purpose? Usually when you bring a story of such tragedy to the public, you should make a point. I saw no point with this. Only to depress us to the point of frustration. If this is a tribute to those depicted in the story, these writers must have either hated the tale or wanted to capitalize on the shock value. They didn't succeed in either case.

Now to the cast: Fortunately the choice of the casting was quite good. Sam Levine as Peter, Julio Pervillan as Ian and Bryan Carroll as Billy all brought believability and humaness to their roles. You felt they were trying to make the emotional focus honest and caring, even without the writers help. Trevor Lissauer as Joe, the heel, and Amber Taylor as Bess, his cohort, were well cast as the selfish hurtful friends that were bent on destroying any sensitivity that stood in their way.

I don't recommend this movie. In my thinking, it is taking the gay world back decades. It certainly is not making choices for our young teens and college students in coming out and being who they are. Instead it slaps the entire movement in the face. I ask the director and writers, if they dislike homosexuality that much. Don't see this. If you do, understand, the purpose of this type of film, even with good acting, is to bring despair to those struggling with their problems.

I really liked this movie and gave it a score of 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. The film was a very believable story involves a young gay man coming of age in college in 1972 in either North Carolina or Virginia . Most of the characters were very good looking and enjoyable to watch. The the nude and sex scenes where shoot in a very tasteful manner, while showing the viewer the lust, sexual experimentation, and passion of their young sexy bodies. I really liked the cinematic style of shooting that was used in the movie. The events in the movie are very true to live for gay people I would recommend this film to to anyone who likes films dealing with gay life issues.

Scott in Virginia

The film has the merit of showing how coming out stories just recently became less problematic, even if in some environments they are still a problem not only for youths. The film is set on Virginia, US, not so long ago, 1972. Peter (Samuel A. Levine) is not properly the mostly shy young boy, being visited by the police right at the beginning of the film for sunbathing in the nude at the roof of his parents' home. Soon he'll be in college, engaging in a sex three-way story with is roommate Joe (Trevor Lissauer) and Joe's girlfriend Bess (Amber Taylor) But things will soon get bad, for the jealousy of Joe, who attacks Peter, rescued of a not very good reputed poetry professor Ian (Julio Perrilán), recovering at his place at the Eden's Curve of the title. The story's sad development can be an adviser that backlashes are always possible, for it happened only 40 years ago. True story, according to the writer. I myself was coming of age at those times, and can assure you things were not that different, even keeping out tragic endings. The film is not a must see for an already over exposed to bad ends gay community, but should remind us that things were not very good until very recently, and we must keep an eye open to have not a coming back of homophobia not so difficult at all.

This movie had so much going for it, I guess, if you saw it in a theatre. But the DVD is a challenge. The sound quality is so poor, even with my stereo surround equipment, that total scenes are inaudible, just mumbling. The blackouts between scenes are too long, making you feel that the movie has stopped. Then occasionally, you get to see a complete scene, well-lighted, and audible and you discover that the acting is quite good and the script is more than passable. It's unfair to rate this film by the lack of quality in the transfer from screen to DVD video. It's a mess...and it shouldn't be! Wait for another Gay Film Festival and hopefully someone will revive it. But if you're seeing it for the first time at home...forget it and rent "Latter Days", "The Man I Love", or "The Trip" instead.