User reviews

There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.

I saw this movie in the late 1950's or early 1960's on TV and it has always stuck with me. The scene that stands out vividly is when Robert Ryan walks into the church and yells, "The Japs just bombed Pearl Harbor". That scene has stuck in my head over 50 years. Oddly it seems that the ending involves bombing Nagoya. The movie went from Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor to the U.S. bombing the Japanese homeland really quickly. Another interesting thing is the movie never uses the word Norton Bombsight. At the time of the movie, even the word Norton was secret. Also, you never see the actual bomb sight only something being carried in a cloth bag by two airmen. Even a picture of the sight was secret. I did like the picture because it shows the training the men received. It seems like a lot of training just to push a button. I also like of part of the Bombardier controlling the plane. The part of the movie seems right in that the plane, pilot, ground crew, and everything else is there just to take the Bombardier to the target so he can push a button. The Pilot and Bombardier is like playing golf. The drive is for the show (pilot) but the putt (bombardier) is for the dough!. The rest was over the top--the oath and song of the Bombardier. Lastly, wasn't the actor who played the Japanese officer also played "Harry Hoo" on the TV show "Get Smart". All in all a film worth watching.

Pat O'Brien takes his Knute Rockne character and joins the Army Air Corps in Bombardier and he and Randolph Scott have a disagreement as far as air tactics go. Scott wants to do things as they do in the RAF where he's been an observer. Fly in low and drop bombs and avoid being shot at.

O'Brien is more interested in technology. Develop and learn how to use an accurate bombsight so you can be up around 20,000 feet and only have to worry about enemy planes which presumably your fighter escort has to deal with.

But since these guys are friends it's a good natured fight as both are in the business of training bombardiers. Among the familiar faces they train are Eddie Albert and Robert Ryan before both went in the service themselves.

Bombardier is so very dated now, but still entertaining. The advances in technology are light years beyond what O'Brien and Scott are dealing with. Film buffs who are air historians might like it though.

Made in 1942, before the allies had the upper-hand in Europe, 'Bombardier' is part entertainment, part propaganda, and part recruiting film. The film follows the establishment of a Bombardier Training School, championed by Major "Chick" Davis (Pat O'Brien), a firm believer in high-altitude precision bombing and criticized by his buddy, Capt. "Buck" Oliver (Randolph Scott), a pilot-oriented proponent of low-level drops and dive-bombing. As the film opens with (the real) Brigadier General Eugene L. Eubank extolling the critical role of the bombardier in the ongoing war, there is little doubt which of the two offensive strategies is going to win out. Typical of the genre, the film follows a diverse group of trainees, from their arrival at the school to their baptisms in fire, with some romantic filler and dated comic-relief thrown in. Even by wartime standards, the film is pretty heavy handed. There is a particularly egregious sequence in which a trainee admits that he is uncomfortable with dropping high-explosives on targets where there may be non-combatants (including women) and that his mother had written him a letter expressing her concerns that he was training to be a murderer. The chaplain explains to him (and indirectly to the audience, which might include people of similar opinions to the fictional mother), that the bombardier is doing God's will by bombing the German military-industrial infrastructure. During the war Americans celebrated "Rosie the Riveter", who represented the women who worked in the factories thereby freeing-up men to fight, and as there would be no reason to believe that women in the Axis powers weren't doing the same, people must have accepted the fact that women could be killed when the factories were bombed (as were, as was later discovered, forced laborers). The film contains is lots of great aircraft footage, especially of the Douglas B-18 Bolo (which would have been obsolete when the film came out) and of the iconic B17 'Flying Fortress'. I particularly liked the well-done special-effects footage of Japanese fighters attacking a formation of five B17s, which bring the massive firepower of their dozens of .50 calibre machineguns to bear, annihilating the attacking fighters. This prodigious defensive firepower gave the plane its nickname but in reality was not sufficient to ward off attacks by faster and more nimble fighters (as the USAF found out at great cost over Germany in 1943). The rest of the special effects are hit and miss, there are some good pyrotechnic scenes as the bombs bullseye Japanese targets but the earlier B18 model work is substandard, even for the times. The cast is fine in what is essentially a propaganda picture, there are lots of gorgeous, soldier-loving, dames to entice young men in the audience to sign-up, and a thrilling but typically far-fetched heroic climax. OK for an unsubtle WW2 morale-booster/recruitment film (especially if you like planes) but not in the same league as the excellent "30 Seconds over Tokyo" (1944).

Major "Chick" Davis (Pat O'Brien) argues for precision high altitude bombing rather than dive bombers. He wins in a bombing competition. It's the start of a new bombardier training program and then America is forced into the war.

There is no way that the bombers are that accurate. Those bullseye targets are impossible until laser-guided bombs. In fact, something as big as a tank would be hard to hit by any plane of that era. Of course, this is wartime propaganda and it serves its purpose. There is some miniature work along with the use of the real bombers. For its time, some of it actually looks good. The story is done in a straight, patriotic, and old fashion melodramatic way. There are a couple of familiar faces. It gets rather intense when some of them get captured which culminates in a bombastic patriotic flourish.

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.

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.

I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.

Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.

Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.

The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.

This is a typical Hollywood movie made to contribute to the war effort during WWII, using all available means, in this case, cinema. It's a blend of war propaganda to raise awareness of the country's war effort and promote the sale of war bonds, while also serving as a call for new recruits.

For fans of WWII war films, especially those set in the world of aviation, it's undoubtedly an interesting movie. It showcases the training required to become a bombardier, with a focus on precision bombing training, a perspective rarely seen before and not replicated in later films. It can provide a complementary view for fans of the celebrated "12 O'Clock High" series, which omits this training aspect in its production.

The narrative is straightforward and linear, with the actors delivering decent performances without any particular standout.

As always, it's intriguing to watch a movie made during the same period as the events it portrays, as it usually features accurate uniforms and vehicles. However, in this case, it's worth noting that the final mission over Nagoya, depicted in the film, couldn't have been carried out by the B-17 bombers shown because it was beyond the reach of Allied bases in the Pacific. This aspect detracts from the film's credibility in portraying the events. In reality, these planes were later deployed in the Mediterranean theater, where they were used extensively.

One surprising aspect of the film is the clear portrayal of the effort to conceal the Norden bomb sight, a targeting system. In reality, the crews were instructed to destroy it in case of bailout. Yet, the film shows it, which might have been seen by enemies. However, the film doesn't reveal the exact workings of the system, so it might have served as a warning to demoralize the enemy. Lastly, when the pilot orders the crew to bail out due to a control failure, in reality, the manual procedure included attempting to restart the engines as a last resort, something not depicted in the film but done by a crew member who chose not to bail out.

Overall, it's a fairly decent movie with good shots for its time, although it doesn't particularly stand out in terms of cinematic quality.

Early 1940s and the US has not yet entered WW2. Major "Chick" Davis is convinced that high-level bombing will win the next war. He convinces the powers-that-be to set up a bombardier school. He efficiently and ruthlessly sets about training the USAAF's first generation of high-level bombardiers.

This film was produced in 1943, so you already know it is going to be more about propaganda than gritty realism. The introductory scenes confirm this, with speeches and hyperbolic propaganda. The movie itself doesn't lay it on too thick though.

As far as the story goes, its okay, though not great. Some lame sub-plots but does end quite well.

Basically a typical propaganda film for the last good war. But there were a couple things that struck me. First was the use of mouthed epithets. In two cases the Scott character mouths one, once at the beginning when he drops his bomb off target during the bomb-off ("dammit") and once when he is trying to sway a bombardier into being a pilot ("s*%t"). I could be wrong about the second instance but I replayed it several times and that's what it looks like to me. The third case is when the Anne Shirley character wishes the O'Brien character goodbye and good luck ("Give 'em hell") over the roar of the engines. She must have thought that was too unladylike because she clearly says "heck". I also found interesting the character that has moral problems with bombing, specifically bombing civilians. The avuncular superior officer assures him that only military targets will be hit due to the precision of the bombsight used. Given what we know about the LeMay's later strategy of firebombing Japanese cities into oblivion this scene plays with not a little irony. I remember McNamara's quoting of LeMay in "The Fog of War", something to the effect that if the US did not win the conflict he would be tried as a war criminal. The ending is way overwrought, in keeping with the movie. It reminded me a bit of the end of White Heat (I'm not comparing the films, just the ending!). Maybe it's just 'cause he gets blowed up. Blowed up real good!!!

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.

Pat O'Brien is awful here; calling his performance unconvincing would be a massive understatement.

Scott isn't much better, but he's tolerable.

The writing is poor, the sickening romance is unbelievable, and the whole story is unnecessarily fabricated!

High altitude bombing was done, but it was nowhere near as effective as this tripe makes it out to be!

It was clearly a key part of the eventual Allied victory in WWII, and that should be enough!

Watch 30 Seconds Over Tokyo instead!

Richard Martin first played Chito Rafferty in this movie World War 2 movie. He would go on to play that same character 32 times, mostly in Tim Holt Westerns, but he did play it twice along side Robert Mitchem in Nevada and West of the Pecos. The Chito Rafferty character also appeared alongside James Warren in Wanderer of the Wasteland. One wonders how a character that first appeared in a modern war flick ended up being a longtime sidekick in Westerns. Interestingly, the second time Martin played his famous character was not with Tim Holt, but with Robert Mitchum in Nevada. It would not be until 1947, that the Rafferty character appeared alongside cowboy star Tim Holt in Wild Horse Mesa.