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.

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.

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...

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.

I certainly wouldn't consider this movie to be a great film but I liked it and am glad I got a chance to see it.

It has always seemed to me that a surprising number of the negative reviews that I read at IMDb fall into two categories. The first is that the movie was not a movie that the reviewer wanted to see, and the second that the movie wasn't made in the manner that the reviewer would have made it. Keeping that in mind I would caution anyone thinking of seeing this that it is NOT a feel good story of 'coming out' in the military. In fact I don't think that I would even characterize it as a gay movie. I would say that it is first and foremost about the military itself and more particularly about the anti-gay witch hunts that were commonplace in the military for decades. It clearly is made from the point of view that these witch hunts had a negative impact on everyone involved, including the military itself. Consequently, there are going to be people who dislike this movie because they despise the idea of gays in the military. In other words, this is not a movie they wanted to see..... ever..... and they don't want you to see it either.

This is a movie about a bunch of guys having a jolly old time flying, and incidentally crashing, very expensive fighter planes during a time of supposed 'peace'. It wouldn't appear that any of them have any doubts about the nature of their sexual orientation. They are the kind of straight dudes that can cavort around naked, even get raunchy and physical with each other without seeing it as really sexual at all. The investigation that becomes central to the film actually comes about because of how they are doing their job; their negligence and dishonesty. If there is one thing that unites them it is the necessity of covering up their screw-ups, and this attitude goes all the way up to the highest command level. To the reviewer who complained that more than 30 minutes at the beginning of the film were devoted to "exposition and character development" I would suggest that, no, this was the actual film. It just wasn't the film you wanted to see. (By the way, I also might mention to the reviewer who complained "It was so hard to follow. Couldn't tell if a day went by, a month, a year or many years" that, in the print I saw at least, the years and locations of each segment were clearly written on the screen. Perhaps you just were too lazy to read them. That could also be why you mistakenly thought it "represented the 1950's")

I have to say that I personally did not particularly enjoy the 'top gun' style antics of these guys. I have a low opinion of the movie "Top Gun" because it helped people get over sour memories of the Vietnam debacle, not a bad thing in itself, but unfortunately I believe it made it easier for us to be led us into the First Gulf War, which many people in this country found to be highly enjoyable and uplifting, but then, again, into the Second one which was 'fun' to watch on TV at first but then not nearly as much fun as it dragged on and on...... like Vietnam. On the plus side, it didn't seem to me that any of the main characters here were portrayed as heroes, except perhaps the one who walks away. Most are easy on the eyes, and I have to hand it to them, they were able to get stinking drunk in their studly white uniforms without spilling a drop.

I think it is fair to point out that "Burning Blue" has what might be considered to be problems with continuity and clarity but I recently saw "Breathless", a movie often found in critic's top ten all time lists, and it was considerably more incoherent and less clear than this film. "Breathless" jumps all over the place. But as one highly respected critic has said, that represents: "the meaninglessness of the time interval between moral decisions." Huh??? If a defining moment here in a crucial scene slips by us unnoticed could it be because the individuals involved initially would prefer to pretend it never happened? And then, for reasons both personal and legal, that turns out to be a rather difficult to accomplish.