Customer Reviews

Hellcats of the Navy

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I am writing this review to correct a previous reviewer. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of this movie "laddie5" simply engaged in a character assassination of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Having actually seen this movie, I can tell you that it is definitely a good one--and also highly underrated! The movie was well adapted from a novel by Vice-Admiral Charles A. Lockwood. In other words, the movie creates a very good image of what it was like on a WWII submarine. Furthermore, the acting is not stiff! The characters all really get into their roles and everything goes smoothly. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone and hope that my fellow reviewers will be more objective from now on.

The "Hellcats of the Navy" are a special branch of the U.S. Navy Submarine Service who did Special Ops. Commander Casey Adams (Ronald Reagan) and the U.S.S. Starfish are sent to bring back sample Japanese mines for the Navy to study. The mission succeeds, but Adams is forced to abandon one of his frogmen, the popular Wes Barton (Harry Lauter). The boat's second in command, Lt. Commander Don Landon (Arthur Franz) second-guesses the captain's decision, since Barton had made advances to the skipper's girlfriend, nurse Helen Blair (Nancy Davis). Landon becomes even more unhappy when he learns Adams turns in a report that says he is a good junior officer but is emotional unfit for command (yes, parts of this movie are going to remind you of "U-157" while others are reminiscent of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"). On the return mission, the Starfish is lost, but Adams, Landon and some of the men are rescued. Finally, after another successful mission their new sub gets a wire entangled in the rudder and Adams goes below in a diving suit to fix the problem. When a Japanese destroyer bears down on the sub, Landon gives the order to submerge, leaving Adams behind.

This 1957 film directed by Nathan Juran, has the virtue of being based on a novel, "Hellcats of the Sea," written by a couple of Admirals, Charles A. Lockwood (played by Maurice Manson in the film) and Hans Christian Adamson. While it owes its place in cinematic history to the fact it is the only film in which Ron and Nancy Reagan appeared together, the strength of "Hellcats of the Navy" is the treatment of command decisions and the morality of leadership. This is a movie that you would have thought would have been produced during or shortly after World War II, but since it deals with secret operations it is not a story the Navy would have passed on until years later. This is not a great WW2 submarine film like "Destination Tokyo," but it is not a bad one by any means. Oh, and the scenes between Ron and Nancy? Well, the romantic sub-plot is pretty minimal and their scenes end up being minor curiosities that are somewhat flat when compared to the shots of them just looking at each other during their years in the White House.

This movie addresses the issue of what it takes to be a good wartime commander. Exciting enemy encounters, good account of a few social interaction between the swabbies and their families. It's an excellent movie despite public ridicule of former President Ronald Reagan's acting (His real-life wife is in it too). It leaves you with a sense that you have learned something, especially after watching it a second time.

Ronald Reagan as Commander Casey Abbott gives one of his best performances. Director Nathan Juran and cinematographer Irving Lippman provide excellent action scenes full of bravado. Charles H. Schneer of "Dynamation" fame produced this film. He and Nathan Juran also gave us the "7th Voyage of Sinbad."

Ronald Reagan at his best - a must see. He was a great president and person. May God give us more men like him. the country needs Real leadership badly.

A wonderful movie of our beloved President Ronald Reagan, made at a time when Hollywood was patriotic to the love of our great country. My father served in the Navy during WWII and fought in the Pacific for the defeat of the Japanese Imperial Navy. This movie captures a glimpse of the heroic sacrifices made by fighting American men such as my father. This is truly a treasured collection to my library.

Okay, most of us saw this movie just to see Ron and Nancy in their only silver-screen hookup. The novelty factor clearly is there, but is there something more to this movie?

I think so.

Although not on par with "Hunt For Red October" or "Run Silent, Run Deep," this is a great sub flick. I think it certainly is within the genre's top 10. Having Admiral Nimitz in the film's introduction was nice touch, but it left me wondering if this was fiction, history, or historical fiction. It was based on real events and by a novel co-written by an admiral and an Air Force general. Anyhow, it was filmed in connection with the USN, and has the tang of bittersweet authenticity.

The setting and macro-conflict is the Pacific Theater of WWII, but the critical issues revolve around the ethical mirco-conflicts between the many and the one that are the meat and drink of warfare.

The first conflict--which sets the film's theme and tone--involves Abbot choosing to abandon a frogman rather than sacrifice his entire sub to the Japanese fleet. In this instance, the many won out over the one.

(By the way, this film is authentic--you do get the J-word.)

The tension sharpens when a crewman and the OX object to Abbot's decision. Not just for the sake of the one seaman, but because that particular seaman has stolen Abbot's girl (Nancy). How is that for a sticky plot?

The second involved Abbot turning back from a mission to save a wounded seaman. In this case, the one won out over the many.

The third involved Abbot's choice to take his crippled sub and map out a minefield necessary for the broader macro-conflict. He chose to risk the sub, map the field, and lost the sub and sixty seamen, but got the map back to HQ, in preparation for the invasion. The many--the whole Pacific front--won out over the few--the 60 seaman.

Throughout the film the XO criticized Abbot, even to the point of backstabbing. Yet the fourth and final conflict involves a bit of poetic justice with the shoe being on the other foot. Abbot is underwater untangling a cable caught in the screw. With the approach of a Japanese destroyer, the XO chooses to submerge with Regan still snarled in the cable. Again, the many wins out over the one.

Abbot is consistently ethical. Although the second conflict seems to be an exception, it is not: the context of the choice was different than the other three. Since there was no immediate danger (as in the first and fourth cases), nor an immediate opportunity to turn the tide of the war (as in case three) , the decision is consistent.

Admittedly, it would have been better to have all of his principles and algorithms, but the format did not allow. "In fact this is the reason why all things are not determined by law, that about some things it is impossible to lay down a law, so that a decree is needed." Nic. Ethics V.10.

The Film is a series of hard ethical choices, and the message is clear: in a pinch, the larger picture wins out over any smaller considerations. In the "Big Speech" scene where Abbot lets the XO have a piece of his mind, he observes that you need to make ethical choices based on reason, cold, solid, lonely reason. There is no room of any bleeding-heart emotion in life and death situations.

The XO is not rational, but an emotionalist. All of his decisions--such as plugging the leaks in the crippled sub and sparing a seam who should be doing it--are based on the warm fuzzes. In peacetime, it may be acceptable, but during a war and on a warship this is unacceptable. Over the long term, such small decisions will destroy the long-term objective of winning the war.

That is profound enough, but the writers make another observation: The emotionalist thinks everyone makes decisions emotionally--case in point being the first conflict. The XO assumes that Abbot let the frogman die in order to get his girl back, similar to the Biblical case of King David and Uriah. Of course this is false, and Abbot's point stands--the emotionalist cannot understand the rationalist in the same sense that a savage cannot understand Socrates. Consequently, a emotionalist really cannot live--in the Socratic sense of a well-examined life.

So what does this film mean, considering the Global War on Terrorism? After the first conflict, I was surprised 1) that the Vice-Admiral sanctioned the action, and 2) there was no leaking of this to the media. Nowadays if a skipper did this, there would be a media condemnation, trial, conviction, hanging, and a false extrapolation of blood corruption and bloodlust to all servicemen. You fill in the blanks.

Since we are unwilling to be rationalist in times of war, the question remains, "Can we win this war?"

Additionally, there are two other revealing ethical calls. The first has to do with a floating craps game. He knows its going on, telegraphs his entrance, and confiscates the dice, but overall he winks at it. He keeps his sub shipshape, but is not a Queeg.

The second has to do with the backstabbing aboard the new sub. What the OX did was clearly insubordination, and he at least deserved to be formally reprimanded or transferred. Yet Abbot not only let it slide, he turned the other cheek and commended the XO's courage. "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" What a class act!

*

The transfer is unquestionably 5, the DVD extras are about a 2--at least the menus look nice. Reagan's acting is a 3.5, Nancy makes a better First Lady than actress, and characterization is merely platonic forms. Do expect a morality play.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan give an average performance here. It is not great or bad. Ron plays a submarine commander, and Nancy plays a Naval nurse. There are some good action scenes. The pictue quality is good. I am a fan of WW2 movies and rate it as OK.

Excellent movie with nothing dirty in it. A good WWII movie. Good acting by both Ronald and Nancy Reagan and the others.

This is the ONLY film in which Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis star together! Based on a true incident. Dramatic World War II action.