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.

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...

That's no indication of the sexual position preferences of the main characters, because I would have no way of knowing. This movie was so muddled and vague it wasn't even clear sex had happened until it was acknowledged in the dialog.We know the characters are in love. That's accomplished with smoldering surreptitious glances. But that's about all you can tell from this bottom-of-the-barrel script. It's really impossible to tell what's going on. It came as a surprise to learn that the action covers about eight years. One of the characters says so. I wouldn't have known otherwise.The plot is navy pilots vying for some prestigious assignment. Things go wrong. Eventually NCIS suspects planes crashed because pilots had gay feelings. No, really--that's it.The last quarter of the movie is more direct, focusing on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell idiocy. But it's pretty heavy handed. I almost expected one of the accusers to twirl a mustache, like the villain in a Dudley DoRight cartoon.I wanted to like this movie, in fact I liked the characters and the setting. But it's really only watchable if you don't care about things like continuity or logic.

Is it me or does every other movie lately have blue in the title? BURNING BLUE, a film about the bizarre perversion and paranoia around gays in the military is actually the worst made film I have seen since WILD WOMEN OF WONGO. It's truly inept. Like a drama directed by Ed Wood. And it is even more rare to witness such bad performances. Simply dreadful. Bad in a not a fun or good way. And then the film feels about 20 years too late. Then suddenly something happens in the last 10 minutes. We jump 6 years ahead to a very short scene when Tammy Blanchard, delivering the only truly professional performance in the film, states "Now what will we do?" To which the lead says, " I don't know."It was so staggering to hear this in an "issue" film. Everything falls apart. The main character is brave beyond measure but then all continues to slide. What will we do? I don't know. Never sounded more honest.