Eden's Curve

I happened across this movie at the video store. I'd never heard of it and thought I'd give a shot. Turned out to be a good story about a guy getting a lot more out of his first semester in college than he anticipated. He's a nice guy that doesn't seem to have much direction and gets into a relationship thats great (from my point of view), but he really doesn't know what he's getting into. That's pretty much his character in a nutshell. His attitude in the opening scene is pretty much what you see throughout his experiences (and you'll want to see his experiences). I really liked this movie as I found it refreshingly different. It's set in the sixties during the war, but you really don't get the feel for that, so much, with the exception of some of the music and a story or two being told by other characters in relationship to the war. The cinematography was great. I loved the campus setting and the wooded area in which one of his professors presided.

There's a lot more I want to say, but I don't like telling too much as it destroys the experience for some. But, if you like the independent film feel you'll like this movie. If you like what Hollywood cranks out all the time then you may not like this movie. It has a small, but impacting, feel.

This film reminded me a little of, "Dreamers", with less fun and more intimacy between certain characters.

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.

Others have remarked that the video quality on the DVD is poor. No argument there. I thought at first maybe I'd been spoiled by a recent visit with a friend's HDTV, but I had to squint the whole time. The sound is sub-average too. Discounting that, the film itself is quite deep, quite surreal, and the sort that will keep you very quiet while watching.

The pace is slow, which I normally despise, but in this case it enhances the whole impression. Watch it when you're NOT in a hurry.

Bryan Carrol as Billy has a screen presence I can't begin to describe. I'll want to see anything else he does.

9/10.

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