Back Soon

I hesitated over seeing this film, even though I loved LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP, by the same filmmaker and leads. The cover art is unattractive and the plot seemed without nuance, as you know already what's going on without having seen the film. In fact, the first scene of the movie gives it away.Now, having seen the film and liked it enough to want it in my collection, I can say the cover art is still bad. And I would suggest the third lead, the female actor, should be the figure looming over the two lead males.I like the leads, both good actors, and I'm sure their contrasting physical appeal will have the audience member favoring one or the other - Montgomery is very angular, sharp-featured, while Beacham is lush, and has a more timeless appeal. There are a few kisses, but nothing more overt in any male-to-male physical interaction on-screen.The plot has to do with how two straight guys find themselves in love with each other, and how they deal with that. The conclusion to the film will be a surprise.There are a couple of bad missteps from the filmmaker: for one, there was no mystery, hence no surprise, as to the motifications behind the brother-in-law's behavior, and it seemed the performance by the actor should have been reined in, as well. Some of the smaller roles are well-filled, but there are bad dialogue scenes. Overall, the screenplay needed some finetuning, mainly to eliminate so much of the stereotyping of both male and female. The screenplay, at times, is unintentionally laughable, and not in a good way, more in a "this is camp" way. When there is too much of that, fortunately the performances of the two leads - both separately and together - saves the day.The worst bit, merely because it's so inappropriate, is when one character ends up brandishing a gun. I won't go into details, but for some reason the actor points the weapon like the short-lived Hollywood fantasy of gun-slinging that involved shooting sideways. It was short-lived, because it was laughed at by virtually anyone who's ever handled a gun. If you hold a gun the way the character did in this film, basically you could be three steps from a barn and still miss it. So that was a big unintentional eye-popping laughfest during an otherwise tense scene, so the diector blew the big one, so to speak.The director has interesting ideas - his LTR was great in exploring an aspect of being in love I can't recall another filmmaker delving into - but doesn't do some of the basic practical work behind the scenes to ensure a great product before he starts pointing his camera and saying "Action." Hopefully he will have evolved by the time his third offering is set in motion.

And I am faced with the same question twice asked in this film, "now what do we do"? Following the untimely death of his wife, Logan is selling their dream home which contains way too many memories. It just so happens that the buyer is the same drunk driver who killed Logans wife Adrianne, who seems to be hellbent as a ghost to put these two men together in a relationship, although both of them are straight. I liked this film, yet at the same time I'm a tad confused as to what this movie is really all about. The concept is pretty neat and original, however the story line lacks delivery big time! It's as if the writer is totally burnt out and didn't care about any attention to detail. There are too many vague areas that need answering. The acting of Windham Beacham is excellent and he was very well cast in this film. His character is refreshing but would shine much more with a well written plot. The "straightness" of the two characters who just somehow end up in bed together, is very unbelievable. Matthew Montgomery done a fine acting job, but frankly I didn't feel he was well cast here. Too much contrast between he and Beacham, and not very believable that the two could possibly have anything in common or form any kind of connection. Montgomery's lines especially were very scathe and ill written. I loved the house, the backdrops were mostly all perfect. The hospital scenes were lousy, unrealistic, had a very ameteur overtone that stunk. The friendship of Logan and his brother in law Spencer could have had more background given to it as could the love between Logan and Adrianne. The story begins really too far into the plot, and begins with confusion that takes too long to figure out what's going on. Good concept, good premise, good acting, but not a professionally written film at all! The ending is weird and also left unexplained. One viewer remarked of what an incredible ending. I simply don't understand where that review came from. The ending was much like the rest of the film, sketchy and poorly written. I like the film overall. I can't exactly say I wasted my money, yet I also can't say it was worth it either. In addition to the poorly written story, this film also lacks raw emotion. Beacham tried hard to insert this into his character , however the script just didn't make room for it. I'd love to see this film redone with a better script and a little different casting. All in all, I'd say it's worth watching, but there are far better films you can purchase than this one. If you are a diehard fan of TLA films, you probably won't mind so much, it's a pretty typical run of the mill TLA, but certainly not one of their best.

Others reviewers have already outlined the story line. While many people may find the premise of two essentially straight men forming a romantic and sexual relationship far fetched, if it were two essentially straight women far more people would find the idea credible.

This is a good product. I like it. This is a good product. I like it. This is a good product. I like it. This is a good product. I like it.

Matthew Montgomery does his usual workman-like job, but Windham Beacham was a disappointment: too many long and supposedly-meaningful pauses and staring off into space. The film's premise is interesting, although "Ghost Whisperer" got there first and with better writing. Still, I'll probably watch it again.