Kirpianuscus
...not exactly better but more profound. it is one of many Hallmark style films and that fact is not so bad. a small comunity. a meeting. a friendship. and that is all. sure, the spice of not ordinary relation between lead characters makes the difference. but it is just a not significant detail. it is obvious than its target is real precise. and this is the start point for define it. not impressive performances, not the legendary love story, not a story different by an easy sketch. short - best option for modest expectations. and, maybe, this is the lead virtue of it. because it is one of refuge films in which a conservative public could imagine the correct parteners of relation and the other part could imagine details to a story who give more credibility to a so familiar story. so, a comfortable film.
hddu10
Yes, I know...gay movies come with their own special lowered bar...but this one wouldn't even allow a centipede to limbo under. The acting is just bad all around. The production values are pretty low (bad sound quality and lighting throughout). I think the worst part was the incessant guitar strumming which made the pace even more tediously slow than necessary. The ONLY good performance was the Doctor, who came off as believable. Other than that, just lackluster and amateur; from the acting to the writing down to the actual filmography. I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about this movie, but I just can't...just not worth seeing.
jimbenben
Several comments mention being drawn to this movie by the photograph of the two men embracing that is shown in the poster and on the DVD cover. But those are not the men actually in the film, are they? I mildly enjoyed this movie, but then I watched it again with the audio commentary from the director and actor (the one who played Mark), and I felt sort of insulted. It's one thing to talk about their shoe-string budget, which leads to numerous "bloopers" like props lying in the background and even another film production crew shown filming at the same hospital location. But when they talk about the weak story-line and writing (for example, laughing about the mysterious "amnesia" that is at the heart of the story), then they've lost me. Low-budget or not, they knew they were making junk and are disrespectful of their audience.
k_rchfld
I have to say I really, really enjoyed this film. I rented this because I wanted to watch a "boy meets boy" movie with none of the stereotypes and clichés that have been present in many other gay themed movies. I most definitely was not disappointed. I wasn't going in thinking that this would have a multi-million dollar budget or big name stars. If that's what you're looking for, then you may be disappointed. Comparing this film to a major studio movie wouldn't be fair because this film didn't have or even need the big budget to be great. The story is simple, but very well written, has fine acting, and you find yourself really caring about the characters, especially the main two. Aaron Orr's performance of Drew is particularly moving because of his angelic yet masculine appeal. You feel his loneliness and his need for love and companionship. Matthew Montgomery is also great as the lost and confused young man. If you're looking for a story that will touch your heart because you can relate to the characters and honestly want things to turn out for them, then see this film. I was thinking about the characters long after the closing credits, and that's what makes a film special. In short, "Gone, but not Forgotten" is of sorts a "Cinderella story" for gay men. And it's been a long time coming. Thank you Michael Akers and Sandon Berg for giving us this film. Considering all of the factors, it is a wonderful achievement.
AD
