Masters of the Air (2024)

Hibbs presents the series as exceptional television and a remarkable achievement. The standfirst singles out its unprecedented impact on the small screen.

The review strongly recommends the miniseries as a brutal, beautiful and powerful depiction of war. It especially praises the show for humanizing the real airmen and exploring their lives and traumas beyond combat.

Howells finds the series highly watchable, with its aerial action making it soar. He praises the nerve-shredding cinematography but finds the characters too one-dimensional.

Hilton finds the series compelling overall, though its glossy presentation sometimes glamorises war. He praises the ensemble and the pulse-quickening aerial action, while wishing for a more naturalistic approach.

The review finds the series stirring and gripping, despite some quibbles and a triumphalist American perspective. It particularly praises the tense, confidently staged flying sequences and the emotional scale of the ensemble drama.

Tinubu finds the series massive, beautifully rendered, and a powerful account of war’s human cost, though its opening episodes are overcrowded and disorienting. She especially praises its later focus on soldiers’ psychological suffering and the Tuskegee Airmen.

The critic finds the series flawed but often very good, with a rousing overall achievement. The claustrophobic cockpit combat and immersive sound design stand out, while repetitive structure and underwritten supporting roles draw criticism.

Ellen finds the series mixed, with weak characterisation and a syrupy, jingoistic tone, but says it is worth watching for its aerial combat scenes. She praises the battle sequences for placing viewers inside the pilots’ blood-spattered cockpits and conveying their terror.

Travers finds the series a visually impressive but shapeless and ultimately disappointing war epic. He praises its immersive aerial combat and cinematography, while faulting its underdeveloped characters and repetitive storytelling.

Baker finds the series a disappointing, old-fashioned drama that lacks the nuance of modern prestige television. She praises the acting and immersive world-building, but criticizes its formulaic missions and muddled dialogue.

Quah finds the series thrilling in the air but dramatically undercooked and less nuanced than its predecessors. He especially praises the claustrophobic combat sequences, while criticizing the shallow characterization and treatment of wartime complexity.

Hussain gives the series an enthusiastic verdict, calling it a must-watch war story with emotional depth. She particularly praises its immersive, state-of-the-art aerial battle scenes and the strong ensemble performances.

The critic finds the episode exceptionally terrifying and destructive, saying it surpasses earlier installments in its depiction of war. They single out the devastating aerial carnage and the losses among the 100th Bomb Group.

The critic calls the series an essential, stylish follow-up that feels like a major television event. They particularly praise its weighty aerial action and the performances of its leading cast.

Terrones finds the series uneven at first but ultimately moving and satisfying. He praises its visually stunning bombing sequences, while faulting the early episodes for failing to establish the leads’ friendship and emotional stakes.

The critic finds the series a worthwhile, reverent companion to its predecessors, though it ranks third among them and falls short in character depth and representation. The aerial combat sequences stand out as especially intense and impressive.

The critic finds the series dull and derivative, arguing that it fails to match the impact of its predecessors. They praise its harrowing depiction of the dangers faced by the airmen in combat.

Cook finds the series overlong and emotionally detached, despite its impressive production. She praises the aerial battle sequences and technical detail of flying under fire, but criticizes the thin characterization and glib treatment of casualties.