Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

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.

Armand or only sketch. two guys. an accident. and a relationship. nothing more. the difference - the nature of relation between central characters. but it is not very important because ambitions of script are limited. few scenes. and nothing else. so, it is a film about roots. and way. and real life as sign of honest freedom. it is a good film and that is basic sin because it has great potential to be more profound. but, it is a problem of team choice. and personal taste. sure, the Hallmark atmosphere is nice. and the warm atmosphere of a small place is realistic. but it is like one of characters food. something missed. few drops of salt, few slices of onion. so, it remains a honest movie. not seed of revolution. but decent, OK and not real boring.

TrivWhiz To keep my review simple, this movie has a good, enjoyable story (although there are a couple of holes in the plot and/or time line), but it was clearly a low budget film, the production values are poor, it was clearly filmed on video, and not celluloid film photography, and most of the actors are mediocre at best. I give this movie a 5 out of 10 rating based on the very good story alone, and if the production and acting were better, I am sure I would have rated this movie higher. It is interesting that the subject matter and theme of the film is still as topical and relevant in 2011 as it was when filmed in 2003, which is not always the case. Some movies are clearly obsolete in subject matter or plot, but this movie is not.

DaveDC This little movie, made on a shoestring budget with a small cast and crew, cannot fairly be compared with a multi-million dollar Hollywood production. In spite of any production limitations, this is a true gem... A simply delightful little film.I'm sure that most of us have a short list of movies that are the entertainment equivalent of soul food - movies that we watch over and over again... we may not fully understand why we like the movie, but it gives us a sense of inner peace - for me, "Gone, But Not Forgotten" is such a film. I found the story refreshingly different from the mainstream gay-themed movies and I thought that the two principal actors, Aaron Orr and Matthew Montgomery were excellent, particularly in the very well crafted love scene.It doesn't take a huge budget and expensive special effects to tell a story well. All it takes is a good storyteller... and Michael D. Akers and Sandon Berg, along with their excellent cast, have managed to tell an interesting and unusual story in an honest and straightforward way.