Eden's Curve (2003) Online

I saw the world premiere of 'Eden's Curve' at the London L&G Film Festival on 6 April & was hooked. The film has a lush distinctive visual style all its own which stays in the memory long after you walk out of the movie theatre. Apparently based on real-life events in a backwoods Virginia University in the early 70s, it succeeds in conveying the spirit & look of the time with exactitude (think a grainier more sepia-tinted version of "The Ice Storm"), Ang Lee meets Jim Jarmusch.

Framed around a bisexual menage-a-trois & a young man's coming-of-age, the film is actually "about" much wider themes of identity, commitment & the limits of romanticism. Sam Levine is excellent as the lead character, a blank page waiting to be written on. Viewed from Europe though, the "real" subject of the film is the Virginia landscape, how the enormity & relative emptiness of America provoke a conflict between 'pioneer' independence & bourgeois conformity unimaginable on this side of the pond.

This is a film about mood & longing, more than about narrative or even characterisation. That means it deserves a wider audience & a good US distribution deal. It would be a tragedy if work of this quality doesn't get seen beyond the "gay film festival circuit", valuable though that is. Go See!

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.

Eden's Curve premiered at the London Lesbian & Gay Film Festival on 6 April 2003. I felt fortunate to be in the audience - also with director Anne Misawa, producer Jerry Meadors and four cast members present.

The story is principally that of Peter (Sam Levine), a 17 year old studying at an all male university in Virginia in the early 1970s. Peter embarks on a fraught relationship with his room-mate Joe (Trevor Lissauer) and Joe's girlfriend Bess (Amber Taylor); but as tender love turns to jealousy and rage, Peter is forced out of his fraternity (despite the protestations of Billy, played with a delightful amorality by Bryan Carroll) and eventually into the arms of Peter's poetry tutor, Ian (Julio Perillan in a stand out performance).

The film has an ethereal quality - I kept thinking of various 4AD album covers seemingly sprung to life on the big screen. A little gem and well worth a look.

I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."

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.

We need to have more filmmakers like these ones. Touching emotionally and yet unforgiving. Sets a tone from the beginning that never let's go. Recommended highly if you like Truffaut. It's subtly is impressive.

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

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.

Refreshing presentation of what main stream America encounters among itself and its populace, as opposed to the "mass media" presentation of things homosexual. Life has its challenges, it ups, its downs, and all are encountered as one is emerging into adulthood. This film captures such essence and is filmed in a way which ferrets through the files of one's brain, evincing images and recollections that strike deep and uplift at the same time.

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.

I'm really sorry but I can't agree with RitchCS' comments as wholeheartedly as perhaps I should.

Despite any nuances in the areas of sound and picture quality, I would definitely recommend this film.

I feel that the sound and picture quality were raw in a way that matched the storyline and certainly didn't detract from it in the way that other users seem to have identified.

The story is a sad but honest one which left you wondering if history was going to repeat itself.

I found that the acting was very believable with a cast that were pleasing to the eye. The hairstyles and wardrobe were great.

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.

It has already been noted by other reviewers that this is yet another "gay-themed" movie with a horrible, depressing ending. For that reason alone, I would never recommend that anyone waste their time on this drivel.

One also can't help but wonder why the casting director failed to hire real 18-year-olds to play the characters who are supposed to be 17 and 18 and 19 years old. The actors in this movie are all in their late 20's and early 30's. Trying to pretend that they're college freshmen is laughable at best.

Furthermore, I don't care if the plot is "based on a true story". It's still stupid. Just because something stupid happened in real life, doesn't mean it automatically needs to be made into an even more stupid film. Avoid unless you're masochistic.

This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.

It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.

The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.

I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.

I saw this film at the NY Gay & Lesbian Film Festival and thought it was pretty bad. First and most distracting was the way much of it was shot; that is, a lot of slow motion and overly arty close-ups that seemed to have no point--story wise or aesthetically--other than to show the skills of the cinematographer (who I believe was also the director). This film seemed what a pretentious film student would come up with. The lead actor (Sam Levine) was certainly very cute, but was a mediocre actor at best; and the rest of the cast ranged from so-so, to bad. The story itself was mostly annoyingly predictable. I do have to concede that most of the audience seemed to enjoy the film; laughing and sighing constantly, but I disliked it a great deal.

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.