tlavideo.com

Amos Lassen wrote on 12/16/2011:

“Breaking the Cycle” is a hard movie to classify. It lies somewhere between a feature film and soft core porn. Unfortunately it succeeds in neither.

Basically it is the story of two young guys, Chad and Jason, who are struggling actors in New York City. The script is about modern gay romance but it is lost because of the nudity and what is supposed to be sex. Some of the lines sound like they were found on the floor as outtakes from a gay porn shoot.

I am not sure where the film is supposed to be going. It does seem that it is a gay romantic comedy that wants to be taken deeply but it also seems that it is not much more than a vehicle for showing us some good looking nude men. Even with that, the acting is quite good (even if the dialog is poor). When the two leads share a conversation, the film is convincing but that is really the only good thing we see.

There is sex but it is very “clean”—it seems to be educative sex and thereby spells out a moral that all of us know all too well. This is not one of the movies that you can watch even though it is bad. This one is so bad that it hurts to watch it.

One reviewer wrote that “Breaking the Cycle” is a movie “that bridges the gap between sexually explicit and feature film…”. I cannot agree even if the film is a little of both. It does question social values as it deals with internet and anonymous sex which has become a major issue in gay life.

Robert E. Seletsky wrote on 07/14/2006:

The plot of "Breaking the Cycle," such as it is, is a caution that
surfing the internet for sex is no way for gay men to find a long-term
relationship, hardly an earth-shattering piece of information.

This is poor, simulated, soft-core gay erotica masquerading as a story.
Its 59 minutes (not 65) of the most threadbare, sophomoric plot
imaginable, no production values (its not even film but glassy,
pixelated video), and preposterous "acting." I should also mention that
although one of the characters exults several times about escaping from
Brooklyn to live in Manhattan, the exterior of the apartment building
where the action largely occurs is certainly not Manhattan: it looks
like its probably the Astoria section of Queens.

The guys are cute, but so what? Sequences culminate in "gay sex,"
amazingly shot without even a glimmer of frontal nudity, and appallingly
simulated by tenth-rate straight "actors" who apparently received no
coaching and dont have a clue about how it should really look. Even
more intolerable, every "actor" is apparently terrified of being seen
*kissing* another guy! Badly simulated intercourse with strangers
appears twice and it is extremely, unsettlingly irresponsible that
nowhere is there a hint of safe-sex practices: no condom is seen--not
even a wrapper, and there arent even fade-outs before the simulated
penetration that might have been interpreted as implying their use.
Scary, and a total turn-off.

Particularly infuriating in the "bonus features" are interviews with two
of the "actors" who loudly flaunt their heterosexuality; they imply--and
not subtly--that they had to remind themselves they were "acting"
(so-called) throughout to keep from feeling nauseous, actually insulting
their target audience. 10% Productions should know far better and should
be mortified by the decision to release this disaster. TLA: you might
want to reconsider your decision to stock it. Gay brothers: save your
money and safeguard your pride.