Back Soon

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.

Caught this on Youtube and since I am desperate for gay romance dramas, I clung to a hope that this wouldn't disappoint. Slow beginning and a few bad supporting actors, but the two main characters(actors) were enough to hold my attention. Even though the theme is serious, there were times I found myself cracking up - like when Logan, a straight widowed guy, sleep walks into the arms of his newly found male soulmate. Not the best movie in terms of script, direction, acting and dialogue, but the ending was OK and there was potential here for the two leads to develop a heartfelt LTR.

After having seen "Long Term Relationship", my impulse was that Rob Williams just could not be taken seriously. But after reading subsequent review of "Back Soon", I decided to give it a shot, and I'm happy to say I was pleasantly surprised. The writing was pretty predictable (I figured out the plot twists within the first 15 minutes...although I thought the characters shared a donated organ) and the actors really have not progressed in range or skill since the previous film. But this one ALMOST works. I say ALMOST, as Matthew Montgomery is NOT able to play a former gang-banger/cholo, nor does he speak Spanish convincingly (yes, I get his name is Ramirez, pero ni madres...está pero MUY sacado de onda). And the "demo reel" scenes don't work at all, since Windham Beacham is indistinguishable from when he is playing his main character or when he is supposedly playing a "bad actor"...they are both the same. Artie O'Daly is great in the "Bad Boy" series because his "gay voice" is hilarious...but it's also too noticeable to play a closeted man if it's supposed to be a surprise or plot twist. If the writing, editing and the actors were just a LITTLE better, this could have been a really memorable film. As it stands now, it's a "good effort".

The opening mood of this picture -- the depression of a widower numb with grief -- pretty much sums up the entire film.

The main character is both figuratively and literally sleepwalking through his life, and the director and actors do the same. How can a movie with supernatural aspects be so unengaging?

Every scene plays out slowly, as if the somber subject matter requires it. Characters interact, but the actors fail to connect with each other, even in scenes where emotions should run high.

A livelier or more varied approach by the director and/or actors would have helped. As it stands, "Back Soon" stays stuck in slow motion.

Back Soon (2007), written and directed by Rob Williams, is a film about two men who are surprised to find themselves attracted to each other.

Windham Beacham plays Logan Foster, a man whose wife has recently died in an auto accident. Matthew Montgomery is Gil Ramirez, a young man with a past. Ramirez is drawn to Foster's house, which is for sale. Ironically, Foster's dead wife, Adrianne (played by Maggie Ellertson), was a real estate broker, and would have probably managed the sale of this property had the tragedy not occurred.

Logan and Gil find themselves physically and emotionally attracted to each other. Because neither is gay, this attraction surprises and confuses them. So far so good.

At this point, the movie took off into the realm of mysticism and the supernatural, and it was at this point that--for me--it lost its bearings and its power to instruct or entertain. "Brokeback Mountain" had a similar plot, and that film stayed true to its basic premise. Some things in life don't make perfect sense--they happen and we don't know why. The writer-director of "Back Soon" apparently thought that the viewers of the movie couldn't handle this kind of uncertainty, so he invented a plot line that explained the situation. People who make movies make choices, and I think this choice was not a good one.

This film will work on DVD, should you choose to see it. It was shown at ImageOut, the Rochester Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival. We saw six films at the festival. Three of them were very good, and two were excellent. "Back Soon" was the weak link.