Commentaires des utilisateurs

This film is primarily for Ronald Reagan buffs or for those who want to see Ron and Nancy on screen together. The story centers around an initially unstable relationship between a submarine commander, a nurse, another officer showing interest in her and an executive officer who questions the motives of the commander, both personally and militarily. Is it one of the 'great' WWII submarine movies? No. Is it worth a look? Yes. It doesn't contain the depth or intensity of Cary Grant's "Destination Tokyo" or Clark Gable's "Run Silent, Run Deep," but could be considered comparable to Glenn Ford's "Torpedo Run."

Most of the comments about this very ordinary war film concerns the fact that it is the only film that co-starred Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Both of them did better work in Hollywood.

The real story is that Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, CINCPAC Pacific Theatre in World War II chose to make a personal appearance in this film about submarines. That's like having Eisenhower or MacArthur make a personal appearance in an army war film. Unheard of.

Nimitz's background was in submarines and our submarine fleet may very well have been the tipping factor in the Pacific War. We did to Japan what the Nazis tried to do to Great Britain, cut off their raw material and food. Nimitz was no hypocrite however. He admitted as much during the Nuremberg trials and that fact saved the Nazi U-Boat commander Karl Doenitz from the hangman for war crimes.

All the clichés about submarine warfare in the pre-atomic era are present in this film. It's a B Picture made just as B Pictures were being phased out of existence. The cast is competent enough, but it's all been done before.

I think the real story is why did Admiral Nimitz choose this submarine film to make an appearance in.

In general, I really like films about submarines. They seem to have a great sense of drama and tension. However, many years ago when I first saw "Hellcats of the Navy", my reaction was not very positive. Fortunately, now that I've re-watched it, I found it was much better and is actually a worthwhile film. Cerebral and understated...but still worthwhile.

The film is about an American sub and its commander, Casey Abbott (Ronald Reagan). His task is to try to discover a way through the Japanese anti-ship defenses (in other words, mines and nets) so that the Americans can cut off the Japanese supply lines to the mainland. However, his job is made tougher because his first officer doesn't particularly like or respect him. He sees Commander Abbott as too emotionless and cold when it comes to his decisions---and this all begins be a problem after the Commander leaves one of his men behind during a mission.

This is the one and only movie that pairs Reagan with his real life wife, Nancy Davis. That alone is reason to watch it. But the loneliness of command and the life and death decisions made by the captain of a vessel also makes this worth seeing. Could this have been better? Sure...it is a bit too cerebral at times. But still, it is a watchable war film and kept my interest.

You have to feel sorry for anybody who tries to write the screenplay for a submarine movie. How is it possible to avoid all the established clichés? The shattered chronometer, the bursting pipe, the ritual commands, the toy submarine nosing through the murk, the wounded skipper lying on the deck and ordering the boat down, the periscope slicing the sea, the tin can approaching at high speed, the pinging sonar gear, the tense sweaty faces, the walloped camera as the depth charge explodes, the conflict between the CO and the Exec, the playful bantering of the crew, a down-the-throat shot.

Added to that are the problems that any Navy movie has. The men have no chance at individual heroism and practically none of being dramatically wounded. (Unless one of them gets appendicitis or has a torpedo fall on him, which happens from time to time.) Basically, the crew are there for comic purposes, so the burden of the drama must fall on the officers. The question can never be about who is going to rush out with his tommy gun and save the rest of the patrol, so it can only be about whose judgment is correct, the skipper or one of his officers. (Sometimes a romantic conflict on the beach is thrown in, but that's rather arbitrary, kind of like the appendicitis patient.) This one isn't too bad, as sub movies go, but it arrives late in the post-war genre. Nobody in it is weak. The enemy is dehumanized, the dialogue trite and exhausted, the action scenes shot on the cheap, and the story is twisted, hard to follow, and sometimes pointless. (Example, midway through the movie a great deal is made of Captain Reagan's having brought back an accurate chart of the Japanese mine fields, but when the subs are sent out en masse it turns out the mines have been moved around so the chart is now irrelevant.) The performers do as well as they can under the circumstances, although Nancy Reagan is definitely in the wrong part here. The right parts would have been those taken by the elderly Bette Davis. The cast has a lot of familiar faces, but none of them memorable because of their having given good performances elsewhere, only memorable because we've seen them so often before.

The director should be spanked. A man is knocked about during a depth charge attack and is taken to sick bay. After he's been treated and bandaged up, there are still trickles of blood down his chin and the side of his face. Once winces at such sloppiness. And there is another painfully staged scene, when Reagan and Davis are saying good-bye. Davis's face is in the foreground. She stares unblinkingly just to the left of the camera's lens while Reagan stands behind and speaks to her over her shoulder. This particular part of cinematic grammar must antedate cinema itself.

Should you see it? Well -- why not. It's a historical curiosity if nothing else.

US Navy submarines bravely try to penetrate the heavily-mined entrance to the Sea of Japan, in order to sink enemy shipping which is carrying coal, food and iron from China to the Japanese homeland.

On one level a simple war action movie, this film is also a commendable study in the morality of leadership. The central question posed by the movie is whether a commander's duty towards a single seaman in obvious danger outweighs his overall responsibility to his crew.

Ronald Reagan is very good as the straight, correct Captain Casey Abbott. Back at Guam he has a girl, a nurse in the military hospital (Nancy Davis, to give her her professional name). When a frogman who is also a rival for the nurse's affections gets into difficulties, Captain Casey has to try to separate personal and professional motivations.

Casey's Executive Officer, Dan Landon, clashes with his skipper but by a twist of fate finds himself having to make a very similar decision. Will he call the plays differently?

The film works as an uncomplicated war story, but does contain a few infelicities. The submariners are depicted as nice guys in order to enlist viewer sympathy, but this is a little overdone and the sailors come across as childish simpletons, stealing cookies and hiding their dice. Wes Barton has to be portrayed as a popular guy so that we will resent his treatment at the Captain's hands, but to have sailors pleading for a Barton story as he is entering the airlock on a dangerous mission is just unbelievable. The crew of the USS Starfish get sealed orders for a special mission. They are to enter the Straits of Tsushima, land a party on a fortified island, and destroy its defences. Would an ordinary submarine crew really be entrusted with such a specialised task? The frogman sequences are shot in murky water and are hard to follow. Penetration of the minefield channel is effected in a few seconds, when such an undertaking would surely last many hours.

For contemporary viewers, much of the film's interest will lie in the unique experience of watching Ron and Nancy onscreen together. They had been married for five years when "Hellcats" was made, and at the time of writing, 42 years later, they are still going strong. It is tempting, if unwarranted, to scrutinize their lines for significant snippets. Ronald Reagan's character is asked what he will do after the War and he announces, "I'm going into the surplus business." Given his leadership style, some would say that was an accurate prediction of both his gubernatorial performance in California and his presidency. Much of Ron's dialogue is an essay on the burden of leadership, and how only a special few are fitted to bear it. Nancy confides to him, "You know I was fresh out of a bad marriage when we met. I wanted to be sure this time. So we played it safe, until I knew you were Mr. Right." In fairness to the Reagans, that, at least, has proved to be autobiographical.

I watched this mainly as a curiosity because of the pairing of Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis. As I understand it, this was the only movie they ever made together. I really don't know much about either of them as actors. To me, they're the former president and first lady of the United States, and I don't really recall having seen either of them in any other movie. This was one of Reagan's last movies before he went into television and then politics. I've heard a lot of jokes around Reagan's acting career - but based on this I'd say those have more to do with people not liking his presidency than his acting. I can understand why his career was in "B" movies. He wasn't great in this, but he wasn't bad either.

The movie was a bit formulaic. Reagan played Captain Abbott - a submarine commander in the Pacific in World War II. As the movie opens he has to make a decision that results in the death of a crewman. Coincidentally, that crewman was involved romantically with a nurse named Helen (Davis) - who had previously been involved with Abbott. This set up tension between Abbott and his executive officer, Landon (Arthur Franz) who believed Abbott had been influenced by jealousy.

The movie wasn't bad. There were a few suspenseful scenes as Abbott's sub either attacked or was being attacked by Japanese vessels. I thought it strange that, given the tension and distrust between them, the US Navy would keep Abbott and Landon together, and the whole thing came down to a predictably happy ending for all.

I'd say this movie was OK, as was Reagan's performance. I may have watched it out of curiosity because of Reagan and Davis, but having watched it what really strikes me as interesting was the opening prologue by Admiral Chester Nimitz, who clearly thought that the story of Pacific submariners needed to be told. (6/10)

This movie is pretty awful! The only thing bringing me back to watch it is the chemistry between Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Davis. Seeing them both onscreen together makes me smile, and the chemistry they had together makes me smile even more. The simple onscreen time together reflects the intimacy of their relationship that guided them to the white house.

Besides that, the acting, story, editing, and characters are tough to handle.

I won't waste your time or mine with a lengthy description of this extremely poor movie. The fact that Ronald Reagan is in it certainly doesn't help. If the tactics portrayed by the U.S. Submarine Service in this motion picture were accurate we might all be speaking Japanese right now. The fictitious submarine is constantly in trouble. Especially poor are the models used to depict the USS Starfish underwater. Most of them must have been purchased the daybefore at a five and ten store in Burbank or Glendale, within a fewminutes or a few blocks of the studio. A total waste of film. If someone gave me a DVD of this I would immediately crack it into several hundred pieces.

I have watched this film more than once and like it better each time. If Ronald and Nancy Reagan in leading roles are not enough, it has Admiral Chester A. Nimitz, Commander in Chief, Pacific, during World War II, in a speaking role. And it is not just a bunch of flag waving (except in the best sense, of course). It addresses the burdens of command and making difficult decisions unemotionally on the basis of good judgment. Reagan is a submarine commander who has to dive fast, leaving a crew member overboard, because a Japanese destroyer is bearing down on them. His exec and some of the crew despise him for what looks like cowardice. The captain tells his exec exactly how and why he made the decision, but the exec is unconvinced. The exec demands and gets a Navy board hearing, which confirms the decision. It is a remarkable film if only for seeing a president and first lady in romantic film roles discussing marriage. He declines marrying, telling her, "I want a wife and children not a widow and orphans." Stern stuff there. Then when the "hellcats" (submarines dispatched to cut off shipping across the Sea of Japan) are ready to go Admiral Nimitz gives their captains a preparatory speech on camera. I found watching the film in this and other ways exceptional and not your standard Hollywood war rattler. The story wraps up with the exec having to make the same decision Reagan made in the earlier scene. Movies used to have braver messages than today, but that figures.

I've seen this film a few times and it makes me cringe......And believe me I know my sub films!

Ronny is as stiff as a board throughout the film....In fact, he conveys the claustrophobic feeling of being cooped up in a fleet boat during WWII better than any other film does...He's grim and wooden...It's nigh unto impossible to build up any feelings or emotions for anyone in the cast.

Arthur Franz shines - as always, as the exec.......He's the one guy that manages to rise above the banal (make that abysmal) script and Nathan Juran's limp-wristed direction....It's kinda' like "Ed Wood does WWII".....Araggh!

You can see swipes from all over the place.....The scene with the guys swimming underwater with flaming fuel above was lifted from 1943's "Crash Dive" done by Fox!!!! Also the footage from the scene with the jap sub surfacing was actually Dana Andrew's sub from the same film! Neat huh?....Then you take the underwater scenes with the divers wearing 1950's scuba equipment(!) dealing with the japs....Looks like it too was influenced by Fox - this time from 1951's: "The Frogmen"....Ouch!

The few high points in this film stem from good location shots which appear to be off of Long Beach and Palos Verdes Penninsula aren't bad...No doubt shot on an old Gato class sub that was part of the active reserves....

Take note of the typical cheesy Columbia budget-that's all too obvious! Mischa Bakaleinikoff's (Columbia's in-house composer)hokey soundtrack sounds like sloppy seconds from Columbia's 1955 sub/sci-fi flick: "It came from Beneath the Sea".

This film might have been credible with a decent script, decent direction and decent acting.....But it isn't....

If this movie were a sub wreck, even Bob Ballard wouldn't touch it!

Try watching "Hell Below" if you want to see an outstanding sub film...They don't get much better!

The seriously lacking Ronny Raygun is terrible in this cheap piece of oropaganda. It has cheap special effects, & does not compare to far better submarine films like Robert Wise's "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958) starring Burt Lancaster & Clark Gable. There are countless others which surpass this cheesy garbage. Skip it; at all costs!

It seems to me a few reviewers are letting their feelings for Reagan as a president seep into their views on the movie. Probably doesn't help matters that this was his only on-screen pairing with his future first lady, Nancy Davis.

This movie is pretty generic in its conflicts. A captain has to make tough decisions in wartime, decisions that cost people their lives. Considering the budget, the scenes were well shot.

This was one of Reagan's last movies, before he went on to be a pitchman and then a politician.

Also surprising is the participation of Admiral Chester Nimitz playing himself. perhaps Nimitz felt the submariners didn't get their due, with all the war movies being made about pilots and infantry, so he lent his credibility to this film.

If you check your feelings about President Reagan at the door, you can enjoy this film for what it is.

You grew up with black and white TV. When you had a bath (once a week) the shampoo bottle was a midget submarine with John Mills in it. The soap dish was the Tirpitz. You get the picture. All your life you've had the sounds of ASDIC pinging in your head, heard the klaxons, the shouted commands, seen images of sweat pouring from the faces of terrified young men, seen the depth charges bounce off the hull, the mine cables caught on the conning tower, the burning tanker going down, the sailors drowning in the burning oil, the heroism and the brutality and all the sweep of human experience. This is a good film. Welcome to your childhood, when LEGO was for building Lancaster bombers, battleships and....submarines. Thanks to the men and women of the R.N., M.N. & U.S.N. - Lest we Forget.

I first saw this movie in the early 1980's when WTBS of Atlanta (Ted Turner's "Superstation", which put itself on the cable TV map as the leading broadcaster of "vintage" movies at that time) started running it during Ronald Reagan's first presidential administration. At that time I found it noticeably unsettling to see the sitting President of the United States and the First Lady appearing in this manner (and maybe all the more so considering how I had voted for him, enthusiastically). Recently I got on a War in the Pacific kick and among other things decided to look at it again for the first time in years. A few points come to mind:

1. To begin with, the personal conflict which is proffered to serve as the backbone of this story is as badly contrived as any in the history of the movies. The executive officer's tirade and the position he took that prompted it was not only unwarranted, it was ridiculous. The behavior he displayed was not only immature, it just plain incompetent for someone in his position. Indeed, Reagan himself seemed to delay way too long himself in pulling the plug when he got the report of the rapidly closing radar contact -- just ask any submariner of the world war II era about these things (assuming you can find one, at this point). About the only kind thing I can say about this premise is that maybe with some detailed massaging of the script around this point there might have been some way to make it more plausible, but there is precious little that is subtly technical in this movie anyway, and indeed, some of the simpler technical aspects they did attempt to address were handled in too weak a way to be clear to a typical audience member who doesn't know anything about the US submarine campaign in World War II.

2. Having said that, this movie was not as bad as I remembered from my original viewing, or anticipated on commencing my recent one. There is actually some historical basis for the rest of the plot, and in terms of technical detail there is quite a bit that is pretty accurate, for a movie, even if it is by no means a perfect depiction of combat on a submarine of the era, and it indulges in all sorts of classic submarine movie clichés and characteristically highly improbable plot developments. The reference to "Hellcats" in the title was to one particular trio of wolfpacks of American submarines (which usually operated alone rather than in packs) which was nicknamed the Hellcats and organized for the purpose of a simultaneous mass raid on targets within the Sea of Japan in the last few months of the war, just as eventually indicated in the latter part of the movie.

3. Although Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz was as important as anybody else in winning World Wart II, and held as much rank as Eisenhower or MacArthur, he never got the same kind of public attention they did (MacArthur being an egotist who actively courted media attention and Ike just being Ike), and as this movie shows he was not at all telegenic. Having so little star power, and regardless of his historical importance, comparing him to the two generals in connection with his appearance in a film is probably not entirely appropriate. A better question might be why he agreed to appear in it at all; I guess they simply asked him him to, and he couldn't tell the difference between Ronald Reagan and Clark Gable or John Wayne, or between an A-list movie and second-rate matinée-fodder, or maybe he didn't even care. I doubt seriously that in his rise to Pacific Ocean Areas Commander-in-Chief and Five Stars (the highest ranking admiral in an operational command in the history of the Navy) he probably had not paid more than cursory attention to the movie industry, lacking either the time, the interest, or both.

On the other hand, I figure that he was willing to lend his appearance to this thing as a way to plug the wartime Pacific Fleet Submarine Force, which didn't earn the nickname "Silent Service" because they were getting the attention and public adulation they deserved. In point of fact, almost one-third of the Japanese warships sunk in World War II were sunk by the US Pacific Fleet submarine force -- even though it amounted to less than 2% of the Navy's total personnel. As if that were not enough, they then went on to sink over 50% of Japan's merchant marine, i.e., commercial shipping, essentially strangling Dai Nippon, the Japanese Empire. As the Navy's designated submarine force historian noted in his official history of the American Pacific submarine offensive, the Atomic Bomb was just the funeral pyre for an enemy which had been drowned at sea. I can't imagine Nimitz, who was also a former submariner himself, not wanting to see that the force finally got the recognition it deserved among all of the up-till-then better-sung heroes of the war in the air and on land and even on the surface of the sea.

Leaden acting. Awful special effects. Every time the submarines go out, so does the sonar (amazing, huh?) A forced conflict between the captain and his executive officer. It also has some of the worst dialogue imaginable, especially in the Ronald Reagan-Nancy Davis scenes. All in all, I would have rather watched an old television test-pattern.