BILLYBOY-10 Oh, me oh my, where to begin? The actors don't speak their lines, they obviously read them from 3x5 cue cards stapled to each others foreheads. For one, I can't look at the ugly one because of his goofy looking circus clown ears (surely as an actor he could afford to get them fixed?) They are suppose to be playing two straight guys so why are they dripping gay (check out the hideous purple fairy shit the cuter one wears). So, now we add a absurd plot/story-line to the mix, a huge dose of dreadful directing and you come up with..as the french would say: Gar-bage. This is one of those movies that is so ridiculously bad, its laughable, like the worst movie ever made, you just can't keep you eyes off this train wreck...and in slow, dragging, plodding motion. Oh dear, I've spoiled this heap for you but please do get yourself in a mood for and hour and twenty minutes of disbelief.

jfessenden This is obviously a low-budget film -- quite possibly a micro-budget film, by studio standards. As such, I went in expecting poor production values. The writing might or might not be good, and the acting could vary from friends of the director who could barely read their lines to good non-A-list actors. Also, judging from the majority of low-budget GAY films I've seen in recent years, I didn't have my hopes up.The beginning of the film was a bit weak. The acting was better than it could have been, but some of the dialog was trite. The production values weren't bad.Then I was surprised to find myself getting caught up in the two main characters and their situation. The first time they end up in bed together had me hooked. It was very sweet, and their reaction to it the next morning was even better. The minor characters did silly things that the filmmaker tried to pass off as plot complications, and I could have done without most of it, but I really liked these two characters and was really engaged by them on screen.I've read the other reviews that seemed to think the best part of the film was two straight guys falling in love, while the supernatural element ruined the story. I completely disagree. Two straight guys falling in love is a porn plot. I've seen it a hundred times. The reason for the love that developed between them, and the questions it raised about the nature of that love were what make the movie interesting.I also strongly disagree with all of the comments about the lack of nudity being an issue. I'm not a teenager. If I want pornography, I'm perfectly capable of finding it. I don't object to nudity in films, and my own micro-budget films have a good bit. But I'm very tired of the expectation that a gay romance must be seventy-percent sex scenes.This is a very sweet film. The ending is a bit unsatisfying, but I like the fact that it's open, at least.

billy_dana I'll confess I have a thing for the movies I've seen Matthew Montgomery in over the last few years. Gone but Not Forgotten, while not brilliantly acted, is such a strong story, with heart-felt acting, that it is difficult to not love. Part of what makes that movie so engaging is the character M.M. plays as the man with no memory running from his former life. He carries it off brilliantly, and strengthens the rest of the movie with his effort. (I also think that Aaron Orr does a great job - both actors seem to suffer from less-than-optimal writing and some limited directing.) So it is difficult then to watch Matthew and his co-star Windham Beacham struggle through both Long-Term Relationship and Back Soon. Both stories should work (although Back Soon is too willing to explain things not needing explanation.) Both actors (whatever else you've read here in the reviews for Back Soon) are solid, even gifted actors. But in both films they seem to, at points, limp along, again (I assume) crippled by directing issues and some dialogue problems.Which is not to say that I don't respect Rob Williams for his story-creating skills! As stated, both movies should work. It feels like (to this indie and gay-themed movie fan) that Mr. Williams doesn't always trust what should "gel" and what shouldn't in a movie. Both actors, in both movies, needed more fire, more energy, more passion for their characters. I would argue that Matthew Montgomery is better in Back Soon than Long-Term Relationship precisely for (a great deal of the movie)this reason: he is more involved, more "wearing the head" of his character.Bottom-line: watch all 3 movies. See the interesting stories, grieve for the lagging moments, and wish for vehicles and directors that will give these actors and these kinds of stories the platform to achieve lift-off. Looking forward to both men's future work. And to Rob Williams too!

em89072002 Two people involved in fatal accidents on the same day (a woman in a car wreck and a man in a drive-by shooting) simultaneously end up at hospital emergency rooms, and their spirits meet with the proverbial white light in the background. The woman dies, but the man is brought back to life. However, their spirits become intertwined, and her spirit influences his subsequent actions. This is the main premise of the story, and it is a decent concept.The idea is set-up fair enough: the first two-thirds of the movie lead up to that ah-ha moment where the underlying premise is revealed via flashbacks (yet the remainder is predictable - the spirits eventually become unintangled). But, the movie just doesn't work primarily because the characters (Logan - the woman's husband who becomes attracted to Gil, Gil-the man brought back to life who is drawn to Logan by the woman's spirit, Spencer - Logan's friend, Jamie - Gil's friend and the rest) aren't that believable. Their credibility is ruined partly because the dialogue and direction are horrible and partly because the actors are just really bad. It was frustrating and annoying to keep watching them try to make this story work. For example, in one scene with Logan, Gil and Spencer, Spencer goes on a bigoted tirade directed at Gil but it elicits very little reaction from either Logan or Gil. Here, the actions and reactions are unrealistic.When the issue causing tension between Logan and Spencer is revealed, Spencer's performance is over-the-top and Logan's reaction is just flat. The sleep-walking booty call scene is so far-fetched and ridiculously acted that one simply watches in utter disbelief. Toward the end of the movie Gil is nearly killed again, and this time the woman's spirit separates from him. In the hospital recovery room He and Logan ponder whether their relationship has any future now that their former menage a trois has become a twosome. This is the final scene and one of the most dramatic parts of the story but the performances are so weak that it seemed like I was watching a shoddy high school play or at best a third rate community theater production. The funny/sad thing is that within the movie a clip of a sexploitation flick that Logan acted in is shown, and he and Gil joke that the acting was horrible --- yet, it's not that different from the rest of the movie.The notion of spirits lingering around after death has been done before in dramas, and done well in films like GHOST, HEAVEN CAN WAIT/ HERE COMES MR. JORDAN and TOPPER. The idea underlying this film provides an interesting twist to the spirit-lingering concept, but it's an idea that's very poorly executed.