Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I know many reviewers here delve into the aspect of SAC life and the B- 36. My overall take on this film is about sacrifice to keep America safe and individual patriotism. Short and to the point."Jimmy" Stewart was well chosen for the role as he was a high ranking AF officer himself. This is not to mention that he actually flew bombing missions in WWII.

A professional baseball player is drafted by the Air Force to rejoin the title division, where he served during WWII. Stewart had a long and successful career during which he made many fine films, but this is without a double one of his worst clunkers. It is little more than a propaganda film for the Air Force. There are long, dull sequences showing men going on uneventful missions. It is so tedious that time seems to come to a standstill. Furthermore, Stewart was obviously too old for the role. Looking to be pushing 50, he is not at all believable as a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. Allyson is rather annoying as his cloying wife, her third screen role as Stewart's wife.

As military films go, "Strategic Air Command" is pretty run-of-the-mill. It is most likely that the lack of constant action (we are talking the post-Korean war Cold War era) is what keeps it from being very absorbing.Jimmy Stewart, as Lt. Col. Robert 'Dutch' Holland, is a former baseball player recruited into SAC despite his initial lack of enthusiasm. And his wife June Allyson (as Sally Holland) is even less thrilled as her husband is thrust into the maelstrom of lengthy patrols, uneven schedules and seemingly endless on-call status situations. And of course there is the inherent danger and uncertainty that adds considerable stress in a military family.June Allyson is on the short list of my least favorite Hollywood women stars. Apparently many liked her almost constant portrayals of "the gal I left behind". I instead picture her as one of the least hot women I've seen in leading roles – sort of another Doris Day. She is right on cue here, demonstrating her Susie Homemaker type, and eventually seems to be a regular spoilsport.Jimmy Stewart, also an actor I am not too thrilled about – discounting primarily his work with Alfred Hitchcock – plays his usual mostly affable sort, but he does show us a tough streak in parts of the movie. And he does convey pretty well the effects that the strain of long flights and topsy-turvy schedules has on a person in those scenes. To his advantage in this film, Stewart was the real deal, having been a decorated Air Force pilot.The film relies on tried-and-true Hollywood plot lines; all the usual concerns of family life are trotted out. So we are leaning pretty heavily to the sentimental side of things.Nonetheless, the photography is remarkable. The live footage of contemporary state-of-the-art aircraft, in flight, on the ground, and even during ground operations is very good. There is a scene of in-flight refueling, which in my view is the edgiest moment of the movie, that makes us think "I still don't really see how that works", even though it is skillfully captured.The film had an Academy Award nomination for Best Writing, Motion Picture Story. That stumps me; the award it did receive was a Special Citation for the Aerial Photography from National Board of Review, and that was well deserved.Two and a half stars.

I just finished reading all of the comments posted over the years on this movie. Some people never cease to amaze me.First, the film is a must-see for aviation buffs, particularly those who are interested in the USAF during the 1950's. Many commenter's have referred to the spectacular aerial photography, so nothing further need be said on that issue.The film is also a fascinating look into 50-year old technology. There were no digital readouts or touch screens in 1955. Aircraft instruments were round and the controls were operated with dials, knobs, and switches. It might be hard for the younger generation to believe, but at that time, aircraft like the B-47 were on the cutting edge. Yes, compared to an F-16 or B-2, the B-36, B-45, and even the B-47 were dinosaurs. But at that time, they were top of the line aircraft.What prompted me to comment though, is the criticism brought by some on the social "evils" of the film, including sexism, degradation of women, etc. Come on, folks, get real! I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the film pretty accurately portrays the way American society was at that time. I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and that's the way it was.Even in the opening acknowledgment to SAC, the film producers give thanks to the men in SAC, and the young men who will soon take their place beside them. No mention of the WAF or women in the Air Force. Women didn't fly combat aircraft at that time, and I'm sure in 1955 no one would have imagined that the USAF would someday have female combat pilots.I'm also surprised no one commented on the lack of minorities in the film. I don't recall seeing any African-Americans, Asians, or other people of color in the film, even in the background scenes. Again, a sign of the times.I'm not defending the way women and minorities were treated in that era. But this film wasn't meant to be a catalyst for social change in America. The film is an excellent representation of the cold war fear that existed at that time, and the necessity for a strong deterrent to the spread of Communism. Whether that threat was real can be debated by scholars. But the underlying fear was there. I remember people building bomb shelters in their back yards.In summary, I love this movie. For anyone who is fascinated with the USAF during the 50's, I would highly recommend this film.