Los que supieron morir

As a child, TV I watched "Air Force" and other war films some consider WW II "propaganda" on TV. As a young man, after a night of carousing, I'd come stumbling home and, if a channel were showing these types of films, I'd watch them on the Late, Late Show. Now, I watch these films for the excellent acting, action, and for their historical content significance as "propaganda" films during the dark part of WWII for the US and its allies. When it seemed as if Japan and Germany were conquering the world. And I could also enjoy the action and danger vicariously.

Don't kid yourself that Hollywood no longer makes "propaganda" films. They are making them now more than ever. The films are just a different type of "propaganda".

I gave this an enthusiastic 6, and that's not said sarcastically. If you accept it for what it is, a WWII propaganda film, it is (except for the last half hour) very well done. It was made within the constraints of being a propaganda film, the necessity to maintain dramatic flow, incomplete knowledge at the time of all the facts, and the availability of aircraft that the Army Air Corps could provide. The aircraft are clearly the best thing about the film, though Harry Carey came close to stealing the movie. The aerial battles were staged by Paul Mantz, who was THE best in the business. There were two major weaknesses. The first was the frequent references to 5th column activity. Except for one minor incident in the Kauai area, the Japanese-Americans in Hawaii were singularly loyal to the U.S. The biggest weakness was the totally fictitious battle in the last 30 minutes of the movie. It never happened. The only sea battle in that area during that time frame was the battle of the Java Sea, which was a disaster for the U.S. and Dutch forces. Rather it seemed to be an enhanced composite of the attacks on Japanese convoys in the New Guinea/Solomon Islands area, and the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. We had nothing like the forces portrayed available at that time. The fighters shown at Clark Field were Bell P-39s. They were very pretty little planes, but were such a disappointment they earned the nickname Iron Dogs (all metal and "dogs"). But they still would have been far superior to what was actually available there. Sharp-eyed viewers would see that they were also used to stand in for radial-engined Zeroes (P-39s had liquid-cooled engines), along with radial-engined American trainers in the battle scenes. Also, I am practically certain B-17s didn't have the range to fly from Hickam to Clark with only one refueling stop, but that is justified by the necessity for dramatic flow. One more note - the dramatic picture of the capsizing battleship near the end of the movie was not a model, but rather a film of the Austro-Hungarian Szent Istvan sunk in 1918 during WWI.

I've seen this on cable dozens of times and almost never turn it off when it comes on. Some of the comments about the racist terms are simply naive. Trying to judge a movie 60 years later using political correctness as a measurement is like trying to compare Slater Martin with Michael Jordan. Air Force was released in 1943 meaning it was written and produced shortly after Pearl Harbor. So, the terms "Fried Jap" are understandable considering the times. Yes, the death bed scene was sappy. But the scene where the "Mary Anne" is trying to take off just one step ahead of invading japaness troops is exciting. The special effects are good (again, considering the technology 60 years ago) and although you can point to problems here or there, I think Howard Hawks and a great cast make this a movie people will enjoy for many more decades.

For modern viewers, this is truly a movie for airplane buffs. How many movies can you find with early B-17s flying? I have always appreciated this movie for that purpose. Those early birds without tail guns and power turrets were all gone by wars end. This movie was made during the dark days of WWII for America and the 'D' models were still fairly new and in use stateside as training aircraft. Thankfully the producers just went to real Army Air Fields and used existing equipment. That is wonderful visual documentation for history buffs! Many 'props' were real! The Air Corps thermos bottles and the Air Crew bandoleers for pistol ammunition were great to see documented.

This was a wartime movie made in a period where we had suffered lots of defeats and few victories. The young men being sent off to war had grown up being taught not to kill their fellow humans. Most of the early war 'propaganda' films went to lengths to 'dehumanize' the enemy so that a young American entering combat would not be conflicted. This happens in all wars but is more obvious to us today due to the amount of films made during WWII. Regarding the talk of 'fifth column' work at Pearl Harbor, I believe some have missed the point of the propaganda. We have become so aware of the race issue that we miss the point made in the film. It was not so much to single out the Japanese ancestry citizens of Hawaii as to make the American people think that it wasn't our military's fault that we were caught by surprise. The theme in that scene and later on Wake Island proffered that 'our boys don't lose in an even fight'. It was to establish confidence in our military and equipment. The idea was to tell the U.S. civilian population that we couldn't lose unless stabbed in the back. Actually, much of our equipment of the time was inferior to our opponents. We also had mostly 'green' troops whereas the Japanese had a lot of combat experienced pilots and troops. It was a tough fight all the way through and our veterans deserve full credit for winning.

This movie is entertaining and a great one for airplane/history buffs who know what is 'right' and what isn't correct. Politically it is dated and must be taken in context. It is still fun to watch and worth your time.

OK, so this is a war years propaganda, moral boosting, rah rah USA, loaded with technical inaccuracies movie. This is still a very good film. Actually far better than most of it's genre from that period. What I like about it is not that it's a war movie but that it has such a fine cast and being set in a single interior for much of the film it comes across more like a good stage play set during combat action of World War II. John Garfield, Gig Young, Harry Carey, George Tobias and Arthur Kennedy are among the stellar ensemble cast in a story about the beginning days of America's entry into World War II. A Hal Wallis production with direction by famed Director Howard Hawks. I've probably seen half of the movies directed by Hawks from his 40 year plus directorial career as has most people since he made so many well-known films but in case you may have missed Air Force you should check it out. Dudley Nichols whose screenplay's include Stagecoach, The Bells of St. Mary's, Gunga Din, The Big Sky and For Whom The Bell Tolls was nominated for the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for the 1943 Academy Awards. Author William Faulkner collaborated in rewriting a scene and adding additional dialog. The film's only Academy Award went to George Amy for Best Film Editing. I think Hawks should have received a nomination for direction and the film should have also been nominated for cinematography. The large cast probably canceled each other out for any consideration in actor or supporting actor nominations but they put together a compelling performance. It's a great human drama. I would give this an 8.5 out of a possible 10 and recommend it.