If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

My partner first became smitten by Matthew Montgomery after watching him in the Internet "Star Trek" series/homage "Hidden Frontiers." Montgomery's appeal is easy to understand: he is an attractive guy with considerable screen presence, and he can act. My partner's growing Montgomery crush led him to watch "Back Soon," a movie he liked so much that he suggested we include it in our intermittent Matthew Montgomery "Film" Festival."Back Soon" is the story of a Logan (Windham Beacham, who really should trademark his name), a young actor mourning the death of his wife (Maggie McCollister), who becomes friends with – and the lover of — Gil (Matthew Montgomery), the ex-gang member who buys Logan's house. This is all promising, setting the stage for a thoughtful exploration of grief, love and the nature of attraction. But writer-director Rob Williams reneges on that promise with some bad writing, made worse with some "Touched by an Angel" supernaturalism coming into the story by act three. A more gifted writer could've pulled off this divergence into the spiritual, but Williams' script has a hard enough time making the physical world convincing without exploring ghostly realms. A more gifted writer—especially one doubling as the director—might have realized that Montgomery just wasn't gruff enough to pass as a former Latin gang member (not to mention the street gang back story just didn't work) and rewrite the part to better fit the actor. A more gifted writer might have been able to make Spencer, Logan's Mexican-hating brother-in-law, seem more like an actual racist instead of a parody of one. A more gifted director would have realized Artie O'Daly playing straight Spencer as if he's a bitchy queen telegraphs a story twist miles away.Most of the cast are capable in their roles, even if they don't always fit them. Beacham is appealing as Logan, though it's interesting that in portraying an actor he is rather flat in the scenes featuring Logan auditioning. Even though I never bought Montgomery as a former gang member, he was another bright spot in this movie. I never believed Maggie McCollister (billed here as Maggie Foster) and Beacham as a couple, either, but McCollister's performance showed her as one of the more polished actors in the cast. Not polished but better than anyone would expect is gay porn star Bret Wolfe as Gil's flamboyant – and improbable – best friend. Wolfe's performance here suggests he could fill the roles that used to go to a pre-op Alexis Arquette.I can't be totally dismissive of "Back Soon." Beacham and Montgomery have some nice moments together and it's clear that the people involved have their hearts in the right place. Plus, the movie earns points for featuring mystery novelist John Morgan Wilson in a cameo. I really wanted to like this movie as much as my partner did, but the story's potential is botched by an amateurish script, clunky directing and spotty production values. Still, I'm looking forward to continuing my explorations into the works of Matthew Montgomery and hope that eventually he appears in a movie that's actually shot on film.

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.

After reading the reviews for this movie, I was really hesitant to watch. Once again I proved to myself, sometimes you just have to see/do some things for yourself.First off, is the writing, directing and acting as bad as some have said? No it's not - nor is it Oscar-worthy either. You must remember that this is an indie film with a limited budget so the director doesn't have 30-40 takes each scene to find the hidden gem. Some scenes are better than others, no doubt. But the sum of this movie is definitely better than a few of its parts.There were several references to the movie's "supernatural tendencies" and "unbelievability". I found the story really interesting and fresh. If you're looking for the typical gay indie film that focuses on random hookups and erotic sex scenes, yeah you're going to be disappointed to actually find a STORY here that you need to follow. I wonder if Gil were a woman, would the other reviews have been so pointed? All in all, good effort and interesting story. I'd recommend it.

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.