Simply A Masterpiece

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Thought this was going to be a gay romance about two Navy pilots, but it's just a pathetic, total waste of time. You are sucked into waiting for a romance that almost happens, but then can never because one of them is killed. After this point, it becomes a gay witch hunt by military officials. The actors are handsome, masculine and reasonably competent. But there really is no point in watching this movie. And really....the two closeted gay pilots were only "vaguely" in bed together once...and we are to believe they fell madly in love with one another after just one incidence???? And when they later kissed, right before Matt flew off to die, it didn't feel credible. This movie serves no purpose.

Writing reviews of films, books or music is not something I generally do; certainly, I read and am influenced by them, but I don't write them. This film has, however, inspired me to share my appreciation of the film.A little background: I'm gay, but I hate gay films. In general, they're a load of crap: crass, from little to no plot, following a standard template construction that features far too much sexualisation of the cast. In short, I hate gay films for being everything this film isn't.That being said, this film is not a gay film. There are (spoiler) gay characters, but their sexuality is, for the most part, entirely incidental to the plot and I feel it is handled quite considerately, honestly and subtly; something that, depressingly, is still rare in the film industry. But the film does cover some very important and controversial issues surrounding military service and, whilst it specifically depicts the US Navy, issues such as homophobia and death are universal.I shall not go any further into the plot, but will suffice to say that if you like drama and are not prone to violent outbursts of homophobia, then this is an excellent film for you. My only real complaint about the film is that it wasn't released here in the UK. Instead I had to buy the American DVD and get it shipped; IMO, money very well spent.Point of note, the DVD is rated R and states that it contains strong language, sexual content and graphic nudity. In all honesty, daytime TV is more sexually explicit and the brief nudity doesn't deserve the prefix "graphic" as nothing below the waist is ever put on show, but I would still think twice before showing it to anyone under 16.Thoughtful and intense, this film easily gets a place in my top 10.

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.

The witch hunts that went on in the armed forces during Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a great subject for a film, but the script for this movie is practically incoherent - it's difficult not only to keep the characters straight (no pun intended), but the chronology. After more than 30 minutes of exposition and character-introduction, there is a vitally important scene that is so obtusely directed that ***SPOILER*** I didn't realize until an hour later that two of the characters had had sex. This isn't one of those movies that is so bad that it becomes funny; it's just tedious and confusing. The MPAA guide warns that there is "graphic nudity." Unfortunately, this doesn't involve Rob Mayes, who is very attractive and appealing as the guitar-playing object of desire, and who makes his part of the story believable.