Burning Blue

I've always felt that we don't have enough nice stories about gay love. So I have to say this one is a good one considering so few real gay movies and so many stereotypical and cliché gay movies. It's def worthy to watch it. But the story is so restraining about the great feeling between the two men that the passionate love between them is almost smothered by many distracting scenes in the movie.

I just so wish there could have been more scenes between the beloved two men about how they know each other, how they get into each other and how happy they are when they hang out together even just secretly. This insufficiency is part of the reason why some reviews said they found confusing about who was with who.

But overall good story line though could be better filmed.

Remember it takes place 1990s. The film actually holds together pretty well, and is done with a lot of care and better than average acting & directing. In the end, it would have been a little more exciting, if it were more sexual (i know many bi navy guys that were very wild at this time in navy). Rob Mayes is very good looking. But overall, better than expected. ...some kind of secret was going on with one character, John Cokely...not sure what his conflicts were, but it was obvious he had them.

OK, gotta admit I was lured into this assuming there would be lots of skin and sex. Which there isn't.

On the other hand, the acting, story and music are better than I expected (some of the actors are MUCH better than expected). What keeps this film from being a 10 (for me) is the jarring editing: occasionally scenes jump around a lot and pacing seems uneven. Major plot points just happen and you're left momentarily bewildered as to what the hell just went down. Some of the characters and relationships should have either been flushed out more or else edited out completely, because they feel incomplete.

But the movie also gets 5 stars right out of the gate simply because Rob Mayes is delicious to look at. 😉

No spoiler alerts here! To my mind... OK here are my bug bears: - Not clear for first half hour which decade the film is set. This may have been intentional to suggest timeless values of camaraderie, betrayal, taboo and forbidden love. If so then well done but not clear - Whether its editing, direction or script, the character development is done but not the relationship leaves too much too the power of suggestion and imagination. It's clear to me that someone with a conservative agenda edited out anything that might have been too salacious for its time. The power of suggestion? Meh... - The audience is clearly intended to be wider than just LGBT. But how many non military people will search for a film if not LGBT? Am guessing they were thinking of immediate box office success - how successful was it in the end? As an LGBT film it falls short. OK here are the things I like: - The story itself -The actors (yeah!) - The use of an external figure investigating which uncovered the facts - but not the important ones such as the reasons for the "mishaps"- interesting - The idea of 'blowing off steam' while on shore leave gave the characters time to explore their identity - The courage of one individual to stand up to the organisation and defend himself and the truth... did I understand the story was based on a true one? All in all well done 4* just pity about the need to 'not offend' mainstream audiences...

A film seductive first for the way to define sensitive subjects, for the art of tension and anatomy of conflicts and, off course, not the last, for performances. It is not exactly what you expect and this can be more than a virtue. A smart story and well construction of conflicts. And , sure, the precise message. Short, just real good.