Film

Air Force

Name: Air Force
Genre: Action, Drama, War, Adventure
Released: 1943
Cast: John Ridgely, Gig Young, John Garfield, Arthur Kennedy, George Tobias

War action

Howard Hawks' 1943 war drama follows a B-17 bomber crew from Pearl Harbor to the Philippines, capturing the grinding tension of wartime aviation. It's a character study wrapped in action sequences, interested in how ordinary men hold together under extraordinary pressure. For anyone who loves classical Hollywood craft and wants to see where the war film template began.

TMDb rating

3.3

If you liked this

Twelve O'Clock High1949

Gregory Peck leads a bomber squadron through the moral complexity of command during the air war over Germany. Tense, intelligent, and genuinely gripping about the cost of leadership and survival.

But It's more cerebral than visceral, and the flying sequences don't have modern spectacle. Some find the pacing slow by contemporary standards.

The Memphis Belle1944

Documentary shot during actual bombing runs over Germany. Rare, invaluable footage of what the machinery and danger actually looked like, with an immediacy no dramatization can match.

But It's a documentary, so there's no narrative arc or character development. Some sequences are repetitive, and the technical quality is grainy and occasionally hard to parse.

In Harm's Way1965

John Wayne in a sprawling naval war drama that captures the Pacific theatre's scale and chaos. Multiple storylines, genuine action, and the kind of old-Hollywood filmmaking that rewards attention.

But It runs nearly three hours, and the plotting can feel episodic rather than focused. Wayne's presence looms large, which won't appeal if you find him difficult.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Air Force

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

The Best Years of Our Lives1946

Both are about groups of men under pressure learning to function as a unit. Air Force shows them formed by crisis; Best Years shows them fractured by peace. Both understand that the real subject is how we endure together.

William Wyler's masterpiece shows what happens when the war ends: three men return home to a country that doesn't know how to receive them. It has the same attention to ensemble dynamics and male camaraderie as Air Force, but trained on the aftermath rather than the action.

But At nearly three and a half hours, it's emotionally demanding and doesn't provide catharsis in the way action films do. Some of the melodrama creaks by modern standards.

Objective, Burma!1945

Raoul Walsh directs a taut jungle combat film with real momentum. Errol Flynn in a rare serious role, and the film has an almost documentary-like authenticity about jungle warfare that was revolutionary for its moment.

But The depiction of Japanese soldiers is deeply of its time and ugly in ways that will justifiably bother you. The pacing is relentless but can feel thin on character.

Story of G.I. Joe1945

Ernest Hemingway's story adapted with Robert Mitchum as a war correspondent embedded with infantrymen. It's less about combat than about exhaustion and camaraderie—quieter and sadder than most war films of the era.

But There's minimal plot and no real antagonist except circumstance. If you need propulsive narrative, this meditative approach won't satisfy you.

Flying Fortress1942

Early B-17 film with Richard Greene. It's modest in scope but genuinely interested in the mechanics of the aircraft and the specific dangers of precision bombing missions. Strong on technical detail.

But The dramatic stakes are thin compared to Air Force, and the story is fairly straightforward. It feels more like a training film than a full drama.

A Matter of Life and Death1946

Powell and Pressburger make something wholly different: a pilot shot down over the Channel faces heavenly trial for living when he should have died. Visually extraordinary, philosophically ambitious, unlike anything else.

But The fantasy elements and courtroom structure might feel precious or overwrought if you want grounded realism. The pacing is deliberate, not urgent.

Bombardier1943

Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott in a film specifically about bombardiers and their training. Made the same year as Air Force, it offers a different angle on the same world and shares the period's earnest intensity.

But It's primarily a training film dressed in drama, and the character work is shallow. The jingoism is thick enough to be uncomfortable now.

Captains of the Clouds1942

James Cagney as a bush pilot recruited into the RCAF. It's got Cagney's restless energy and some genuine flying sequences. A solid entertainment that captures the appeal of the early-war recruitment narrative.

But The plot is fairly basic and the characterization thin. It feels more like a vehicle for Cagney's star power than a fully realized drama.

Night and Fog1956

Air Force shows soldiers fighting a distant enemy they rarely see. Night and Fog shows what that enemy was actually doing. Together they form an incomplete but necessary picture of what that war meant.

Alain Resnais' 32-minute documentary on the Holocaust is precisely structured, haunting, and unflinching. It's not primarily about combat but about what the war meant, and it's one of cinema's most essential films about historical responsibility.

But It's a documentary about atrocity, and while not gratuitously graphic, it is deeply difficult. It requires a particular frame of mind and offers no comfort. Some find its quiet approach more devastating than explicit horror.

Come and See1985

Air Force is a 1943 film that still believes in the heroism and camaraderie of war. Come and See is a 1985 film that obliterates that mythology entirely. Watching them in sequence shows how cinema's relationship to war has fundamentally changed, and why.

Elem Klimov's Soviet film follows a boy conscripted into the Red Army and is the most harrowing depiction of warfare ever filmed. Not action-adventure—it's a total inversion of all war-film mythology. Essential if you want to understand what combat actually does.

But It is extremely difficult to watch. The film does not entertain or provide narrative satisfaction. It's a profound expression of suffering that some will find unwatchable, and that's not a flaw—it's the point.