Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

deschreiber Where to begin with this dog of a movie? We could start by pointing out that the premise of the story is wrong, namely, that bombardiers are about to become the most crucial people in the war and that with their wonderful, new, super-top-secret bombsite they will be able to hit their targets right on the nose from 20,000 feet. Total nonsense. Even when the movie was made, nobody could have believed it. Here is a good example of wildly inaccurate bombing was right to the end of the war, from the article on precision bombing in Wikipedia: "In the summer of 1944, 47 B- 29's raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and only with one of its bombs. This single 500 lb (230 kg) general purpose bomb represented one quarter of one percent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant." Early in the movie a cadet has moral scruples about bombing women and children. Oh, but that's what the wicked enemy does, he's told; our side bombs only military targets and does it with wonderful precision. Total nonsense again, on both counts.As for entertainment value, "Bombardier" has just about none. There's a little bit of information about how bombing crews are trained and a few interesting shots of Flying Fortresses——on the ground——but nothing else. There's the usual attempt to add a little romance and a bit of drama about who will pass and who will fail in the training, and whether anybody is afraid (sure, they are, but only a little), but it's all very lame. The dialogue can make you cringe, particularly the lines given to women. Almost all the flying scenes are done badly with pitiful models. The air battle near the end is almost laughable. As the film ends, a final shot is supposed to show a sky crowded with bombers in formation, but the artist who drew the scene has the sky so full of them, so jam-packed together that they're just about overlapping each other, like a flock of starlings.Or how about this for crappy writing? Near the beginning, the air force brass are talking about Hitler's Stuka attacks in Europe and how the U.S. had better get prepared in case one day it has to fight him. At the end our bombardiers are bombing Nagoya. But at no moment in between do we hear about Pearl Harbor or the start of the war for the U.S. Forgot to mention that, I guess.Don't waste your time. I did, and I regret it.

SimonJack This 1943 film by RKO is among several that Hollywood and/or the War Department put out during the early months and years of World War II. It's a mix of genres. The war action comes at the end. A docu-drama style tells the story of the bombardier school and training. Hollywood adds its usual touch of romance, but lightly. The drama is there – even in the training. And, of course, it's a propaganda film. Propaganda surely had its place in WWII – to help sustain public morale, build support for the U.S. cause and efforts, and give the public a picture of some of the troops, training, and campaigns. "Bombardier" tells and shows us the early days of training for this new position in the Army Air Forces – precursor of the U.S. Air Force. As such, it's a good educational piece for the public, then and now. The men who went into combat in different roles weren't tossed together and sent into combat. They were trained first. And for some fields, the training was highly specialized and detailed. This film shows very well that detail, study and science that went into the training of bombardiers. These men indeed played a critical role in destroying enemy armament production, fuel depots and major supplies – and in so doing, helped end the war much earlier than it would have otherwise concluded. Many have said it since the first attribution to Civil War Gen. William T. Sherman, that "War is hell!" But once a nation is in a war, it should do everything possible to end it as soon as possible. Many war movies have been made, especially about the two "great" world wars of the 20th century. They have variously focused on the action of troops in battles, assaults from the sea, naval engagements or air combat. Most give us a picture, however much Hollywood may "tweak" it, of the human conditions, relationships, and characters. Often times they include the strategic plans of real battle scenes. These are the things that most interest people, or "entertain" audiences for this genre. But films such as "Bombardier" add another value in educating and informing the public of what went into the readying of our nation for war, and our ability to win and end it as soon as possible. As an Army paratrooper veteran, I enjoy learning about the "how-to" that men and women learn in the different combat and support specialties of our armed services. People who approach war movies in a similar frame of mind will be much more likely to enjoy them. I highly recommend "Bombardier" as an informative, action-filled and historical war movie.

Michael O'Keefe This war drama from RKO Radio can't help but appear dated, but is evocative of the mindset in the early '40s. An entertaining piece of propaganda with just enough war action and actually features some good acting. The two primary stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott argue over methods of training for the war effort. Scott playing Capt. Buck Oliver, who is adamant about recruiting pilots; O'Brien stars as Major Chick Davis pushing the training of pilots in high altitude precision bombing. The latter becomes head instructor at a flying school inherited by "Burt" Hughes(Anne Shirley). Davis is surprised when Oliver arrives as a flight instructor and insists he complies with the program of bombing training. Sub plots involve the competition for the affections of Miss Hughes; and the arrival of her brother Tom(Eddie Albert)as a student. Intense and grueling aerial footage. Richard Wallace directs; other players include: Robert Ryan, Richard Martin, James Newill, Barton MacLane and Brigadier General Eugene L. Eubanks. And in smaller roles are: Paul Fix, Eddie Dew and Hugh Beaumont.

dexter-10 There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.