Reviews

I'm profoundly uncomfortable writing this review. This film had a lot going for it - great idea, some good-to-great acting, solid production values - but by the end it devolves into a serious disappointment.

Young gay man overseas, doing his art and apparently happy and healthy, gets visited by his best friend and best friend's younger brother. Young gay man and younger brother discover chemistry together one evening. Older brother finds out, gets upset and essentially rapes/abuses young gay man, then tells him to stay away from his younger brother.

There's no hint of any of this homophobia lurking in their friendship up to this point, no clue this is going to go south like this. That might have worked, except that our young gay man is utterly consumed by his love (obsession) with younger brother, even following them back to LA to try to see him, even putting his life at risk with his former-friend-now-raging-homophobe in his attempt to talk to younger brother (and gets assaulted and beaten again for his pains.) At one point young gay man tells a friend that he has a history of falling in love with straight men and it doesn't work out...

Young gay man returns to his overseas home, he spends some time raging and dancing on the beach, then we leap 2 years forward, younger brother shows up, young gay man says it's all history, then buckles when younger brother insists. End of story.

Huh? We should take away what from this? That being gay means we passively accept homophobic behavior from friends? That we are the helpless victims of our feelings? I'm baffled at the direction and intent of this story, and I'm frankly sorry I watched it to the end.

First off I'm an American reviewer looking at a French film, so please hear my cultural bias as you read this review. I always look for some sense of both clarity of origin (of key behavior) and some sense of at least partial resolution.

Both are largely missing from this film! Don't get me wrong. "Time to Leave" is a beautiful film - textured, great acting, clean dialogue (crisp and little waste in this writing) and it definitely takes the viewer on a specific journey. The scenes with the grandmother, the love-making scene with the couple wanting a baby by him, the time on the beach are glorious story-telling.

It is a fine artist's tool in film-making to leave the viewer having to do explaining and filling in of background. Utterly legal. But make us do too much of that and the story begins to suffer, imho. Why are brother and sister so much at odds? Sure, she's bossy. But he was cruel, savage in his diatribe at his sister - why? Yeah, he's terminal. Copy that. This still feels like a part of the story with holes in it.

He no longer loves his boyfriend, even though they are apparently old friends as well as lovers. What changed? Any hints? No. He doesn't want to tell anyone he's terminal. OK. Why? Even a sketch, a moment's passing remark would do wonders for helping the story's strength and clarity.

Again, one American film-goer's opinion. See the film. Much food for thought and some beautiful acting and writing. Just step around the holes!

I've watched this film four times since I found it last spring, and I'm consistently impressed by the level of story-telling in this movie. The writer, director and actors have conspired to bring a very subtle, moving story of a young man finding himself and his voice.

Sure, this is a beautiful dance film. Outstanding dance. But what really moves me in this story is the evolution of the lead character - from frightened, painfully shy and timid to confident, hopeful and engaged with his small community.

My measure of a brilliant film is the lack of "gaps" - i.e., places where the story drags or gets bogged down. This film has no gaps. Equally important to me is an ending that works for the story - not necessarily a happy ending (although this film definitely has that) but an ending that makes sense for the story as it has been told. There should be a sense of rightness to an ending - and this film nails that.

The film is almost a Japanese silk screen of a story - spare, clean, beautiful, simple, subtle.

Ugh. There are elements I appreciate in this story, but in general it fails to get airborne. The black sheep brother needed an actor with strong chops - as much as I wanted this role to work for this movie it never comes to life, gains much dimension.

In fact none of the acting in the story is very strong. I like the lead character very much and he's fighting to rise to the occasion, but his work feels uneven and never fully engaged. Ugh again! Great story idea, great setting, like the premise of the brothers who have parted ways - but it ultimately doesn't work.

(It is almost certainly unfair to push this all off on the actors! The directing seems uneven and unfocused as well.) This is a story I'd love someone to try and do again - with a much stronger cast and better direction.

I'm shattered in all the right ways by this film. First-class acting by the lead characters, brilliant story-writing (want to meet this screen/story writer!), outstanding directing, beautiful filming - I run out of adjectives with which to praise this film.

People have compared it to "Brokeback Mountain", but I think that's a mistake. There is loss here, but there is also an enormous amount of growth. The symbolic use of our lead character's breathing challenges at the start of the film contrasted with his loose and easy breathing in the last scene is a perfect representation of the arc of the story. Loss, but clarity and wisdom as well in this film.

I watch an enormous amount of gay film, and this ranks easily in the top five films I've ever, ever seen in this genre. And it would be unfair to limit this to a gay audience - like Brokeback (in this respect) it is a story for a much larger audience. Some great examination of relationship, self-honesty, the challenge of being attracted (or even in love) with more than one person - some wonderful themes in this movie.

Must-see - end of story.

This film starts strong. It's beautifully filmed, the acting for the most part is very strong, the writing is clean and crisp - there is very little to complain about technically. I also really like the way the primary relationship in the story grows and develops. The two characters are very different, and those differences help fuel some outstanding moments of exchange between the two principal characters.

Having said all that the film seems to peter out at the end! The lead character is in conflict with himself, but the way story just seems to sputter to an end is frustrating. No, not all stories have to end with a bow, no doubt - but this seems to just awkwardly terminate.

I still highly recommend the story, and I look forward to this director's next effort - very much worth watching.

This is a innocuous little tale of growing up and coming out. The teen characters do a pretty credible job of carrying off their roles, but the two parents seem thin at points. The story in general is thin - not much to hang onto except in some of the exchanges between our two young men who are the primary characters.

Just needed more "umph", more depth of story. Things resolve well enough, but I'm not sure I gained anything in the watching... I will look for other work by this director. I suspect the book was better reading than the movie was watching. And as I said in the summary this is an older story, and some slack should be cut for that as well...

Just finished watching this film for the 2nd time. This a small gift of art - a clean, articulate character study that does an enormous amount with a minimum of dialog and some excellent writing, directing and acting. The characters come to life quickly and in 3 dimensions, the tensions created between the two men are great and lend a solid strength to the movie, and it is a fairly out-of-the-box take on romance, gay, straight or otherwise.

It drags a bit in places - but that just may be a very American perspective. It is romantic, even sexy - and does so without anything more sexual than a few kisses and guys sleeping in their underwear. It doesn't preach, it doesn't beat you over the head, and (I would suggest) it doesn't give a damn whether you buy the story or not. It is a well-told tale.

I like that it calls into question the nature of attraction, and who it can happen to, whatever gender preference is articulated. I remember all the discussion around "Brokeback Mountain", and how if a guy is attracted to another guy then they must be gay. Which is of course crap. Here, decades after Kinsey and his research, we still want very much to believe that a person is either/or, when most of us, the vast majority of us, are not so cleanly labeled or boxed.

Two "straight" guys fall in love with each other. Not so wacky. Pretty interesting actually.

I bought this film solely on the promise of Chad Allen's acting skills. I am an ex-Christian who, while never having done the whole "ex-gay" scene in my church years, have held nothing but contempt for the movement and the promises it makes.

So it was doubly remarkable for me to see not only the excellence of this film, but the subtle, thoughtful and beautifully written story as well. Hats off to both writers (Craig Chester, Alan Hines) as well as the screenplay work by Robert Desiderio. The directing, filming and acting were outstanding. The story is a beautiful discussion of both the goodness and healing qualities of the Christian faith, while also exploring the brittle, rigid quality that faith by rules brings to the table. It does perhaps the best job I've ever seen of painting the complexity of homosexuality and Christianity, as well as the intricate dance that has developed between the two.

I am in particular struck by the roles played by the two males leads (Chad Allen and Robert Gant) and the nuanced, powerful performance by Judith Light. The transitions Allen makes from addict/bad boy to hopeful believer to the beginnings of a healthy gay relationship are brilliant. Robert Gant does exceptional work in the wrestling with the need to please a father he'll never win approval from, and in the dialogues where he confronts (in the person of Judith Light) the issues around Christianity, homosexuality and what it means to be a whole person. And Judith Light is a character I believe only a Christian or ex-Christian can deeply appreciate - believer, teacher, mother in denial for the way she feels she failed her son, defender, injured soul. I've met her echo again and again in my long walk through Christianity. Exceptional story-telling.

Thank you Robert Cary. Thank you actors and writers. Thanks for a kickin' piece of film.

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!