Aerial Gunner

I'm not sure how to include this in the "trivia" as a historical gaffe, but the twin-engine bomber used near the end of the film had a rather interesting history itself, and wouldn't have been flown in combat in the Pacific against the Japanese by the USAAF. They only had 18 of them by the time war broke out. These were the older, rarely used B-34 Lexington bombers used in the film.At that time of the war, it would, technically, be a B-37 Ventura, since this was an Army Air Force bomber deployed in wartime. It was derived from the Ventura Model IIA, originally designated the B-34 Lexington, but was redesigned to be an armed observation aircraft. While the USAAF placed an order for 200 of them, the order was increased to 550, and it underwent a redesign (again) with more powerful engines and became the B-37.But the Army Air Force only ever received 18 of the B-37's, and subsequently turned exclusive operations of them over to the Navy, which re-designated them as the PV-1 (Patrol aircraft). Films of USAAF B-34's were in the film, but by the time war broke out, it was the B-37. Only the PV-1 was ever used in combat against the Japanese by U.S. forces (Starting out of Alaska, but moving South to the Solomons), and it was only ever the Navy which flew it in combat. They were originally delivered to the Navy in December, 1942. The B-34's were sent to England and flown by the British before the U.S. entered the war (who found them to be poor operational daylight bombers and relegated them mostly to ocean patrol).So while the aircraft shown in the film was supposedly a USAAF bomber, the Army Air Force would not have been the ones flying any version of it into combat, because they never deployed USAAF PV-1's to the Pacific. They were all Navy by then.Other gaffes include the fact the PV-1 (in any of its previous incarnations from the Ventura Model IIA onward) didn't have a side gunner shooting out a side window like the B-17 or B-25, nor a slit top gun, as depicted in the film. Slit gun mounts on the top of aircraft had been phased out of American aircraft by 1941 So they likely mocked up something like an aircraft interior with obsolete parts to film with.The USAAF did operate twin engine bombers in the Pacific, most notably the B-25's (Which flew Doolittle's Raid over Tokyo in early 1942) and B-26's (among others) but none of those appear in this film. For a history buff looking for any consistency in aircraft and relative times of use, this is NOT a documentary by any stretch.As for the film itself, it's only OK. Some of the scenes involving the training filmed on base were probably never filmed before (or since), so it's unique in that respect. But the backstory dragged, and seemed kind of pointless and the rivalry was rather contrived. In some ways, I'd have rather seen a training film "This is what will happen to you in Gunner's School", but propaganda films were churning out at the time to keep the nation fired up and going, so the "human element" had to be included for the pathos. Middling OK film. Good for those who are interested in World War Two location shots and some (bad) video of lesser known early war U.S. aircraft. Otherwise, not terribly compelling by modern standards.

A great deal of nostalgia influences my high rating of Aerial Gunner — it took me back to my childhood during WWII when I was totally addicted, crazed, about war movies. This one had all the great cliches before they become cliches. The rivalry over a girl, the heroics and sacrifices. Even the "bad" guy turned out a winner in the best example of The American Way! And thank god, there was not one note of the Glenn Miller music that has polluted every one of this movie's contemporaries. Best of all, I always get this same little laugh whenever I watch one these old war flicks: Most of the actor grunts are guys in their 30s or 40s, when the truth was, and is today, the grunts are kids. Maybe it would be better today if all the real soldiers were of advanced age. Maybe they would use their influence to keep us out of wars in an effort to keep their own butts from being shot off. Aerial Gunner is a low budget movie — probably cost about $835 to produce — but that just added to its charm. I think you graybeards out there would love this thing.

I ordered this movie because it was filmed in part in my home town at what was then the Harlingen Army Gunnery school, where they trained gunners for our bomber crews in WWII. It was interesting to see what the area looked like in 1943, and to see a few familiar structures that are either still standing, or at least were still there when I was growing up in the area in the late 60's and early 70s. As for the movie itself, it's got decent acting, and a reasonably interesting storyline that includes a little bit of target-shooting action, and a rivalry over a woman, but if you're looking for a thriller action war movie, this is not the one for you. Incidentally, Robert Mitchum, who is listed on the updated cover of this movie was not a very well-known actor at the time the movie was made, and only has a bit part in the movie. The original movie posters did not even mention him.

I enjoyed seeing my home town of Harlingen the way it was when it was an air force base. Many of the buildings were still standing during the '70s. For many years, the Confederate Air Force was base out of Harlingen and housed their planes in many of the hangers that was shown on the film. It was nice to learn some of the history of the Gunnery School even though the characters in the film were fictional.

This movie is about to enemies that go to the same aerial gunner school. One as an instructor and the other as a student. They deal with their issues while trying to do the right thing for the war effort.

Not a great film, by any means. But a fair story with a few twists. Not quite as predictable as you'd think at the beginning.

This was a good film for its day, a good story line but obviously a small budget.

The video was like in the 40s. They should remaster it !How could you sell movies like that ? You can't watch it !

A run of the mill war film

Not a bad film but a little dated and suffering from the propaganda bug. Watch out for the two lines said by avery young Robert Mitchum !

excellent film

husband enjoyed it,

Dated and quite dreadful .