MovieChat Forums > Hellcats of the Navy Discussion > Bad - really, really bad

Bad - really, really bad

posted 17 years ago by pat2580
13 replies | jump to latest

I love WW2 moral booster films, and even the post-war films that copy them. This film, however, is just plain bad. Bad acting, bad script, bad continuity....

Nancy is goolish. Ronny Ray Gun is predictably steel jawed and determined - humm - maybe that explains his Presidency - he had this script.

I particularly like the part where our heroes in a U.S Submarine (that is in fact a model of a Japanese sub) is depth charged by the Japanese, who amazingly enough, are not only running around at full speed in the middle of a mine field, but are attacking the U.S. sub in a U.S. PT Boat! And not just any PT Boat apparently. This PT boat had DE/DD style racks off the stern and held a great many depth charges. In fact, only some of the U.S. PT Boats carried depth charges, and even then only two that rolled over the side, not off the stern.

Is this a big deal - not really - but it underscores a general lack of attention by the filmmaker that permeates the entire film.

Making a film with a limited budget is a challenge - one this film failed to meet. I dare say it is so shoddy that it verges on being an insult to those that served in submarines.

[–] david_barnett1 17 years ago

Any movie starring America's greatest ever President-to-be is worth watching.

[–] pphs57 15 years ago

Your review reveals whom you really are. Firstly, this was based on a true story. Secondly, your bias against, conceivably among the top three presidents of our time, is evident. In the future, review films with an open mind and all of the facts at hand. Your review provides a disservice to those movie buffs out there that are looking for real help in deciding whether to purchase a movie. I have seen this movie before, and it is a pretty good depiction of what our military people faced. It is a movie worth seeing. Sometimes we need to keep the flames of liberty and freedom alive by remembering the past.

[–] lexp2005 13 years ago

I am NOT an American and I agree that we need to remember the past but surely it should be done in a better way than this trashy film does.

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

Yes it is based upon real events. Not that the actual events as shown in the film happened, but the Hellcat missions were real enough.

But he has a point about the film itself. Don't get me wrong I like this film but a lot of the action is rediculous from a realism standpoint.

The whole firing procedure for one. You are not going to get any sort of torpedo firing solution just by marking a single bearing, as Reagan did over and over.

And the types of ships shown attacking and being attack (like the aforementioned torpedo boats) is rediculous.

1) a torpedo boat has no way of finding and localizing a sub except by spotting the subs exposed scope (No sonars on PT boats)

2) A torpedo fired at a PT boat would almost certainly pass under the very shallow draft vessel without detonating.

I will have to go back and review the film again.. I'll do that later tonight since I got it on DVD but I am pretty sure the other guy is wrong about the US sub actually being a model of a Japanese sub. Pretty sure it was accurately a Gato/Balao class vessel.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

Over my lifetime, I've grown used to films that goof up various details, and find myself enjoying the film for what it is.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] alvink 12 years ago

the fact is that this is NOT a 'pretty good depiction' of what our military people faced.

sometimes we need to keep the flames of liberty and freedom alive by remembering the truths of their lives and struggles, not hollywood imitations. but you may be right!! who knows???

[–] jbuckets 9 years ago

You mean that our military - including my father and uncles (those who returned alive) - did NOT have to face the deadly Japanese naval ships, subs, mines, torpedoes, and depth charges during WWII after all? Really?

So Admiral Nimitz lied in the prologue?

This movie has a great introduction by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz who directly addresses the audience in this movie's prologue. Not often seen speaking in public, Navy buffs will enjoy seeing the Admiral introduce this film. He talks for about two minutes, explaining how he approved the orders for this real life event in World War II. As Commander of the American Fleet in the Pacific region, Nimitz authorized the plan to break the supply chain between the Asian mainland and Japan. The Hellcat submarines were critical to the US Navy achieving this strategy. Nimitz said of this mission: "This is the story of one of the most daring operations in the history of Navy warfare!"

[–] jstatser 8 years ago

Nobody said that your, mine, or anybody else's relatives " did NOT have to face the deadly Japanese" weapons. What they are saying is that THIS movie is a poor depiction "... of one of the most daring operations in the history of Navy warfare!"

"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude"- Marx

[–] Bill-16 11 years ago

We can all be thankful Ronald W. Reagan went on to politics. Acting was just a hobby for him and still did it better than the 99.9% of us who never became a Hollywood Star.

[–] pt100 9 years ago

Judging from this thread, it looks like you wandered into a nest of conservatives! 😉

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] liscarkat-2 9 years ago

Evaluation of an actor's talent should not be based on his or her political point of view. It's quite possible for Reagan to have been a decent film performer, which he was, and then to have made political decisions you don't agree with. One has no bearing on the other.

[–] pt100 9 years ago

You have no evidence that the two are not related. By the way, he left us with some of the biggest deficits in history. Even his own VP referred to his economic policy as "voodoo economics": a slanderous term used by George H. W. Bush in reference to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies, which came to be known as "Reaganomics".

And the Soviet Union just happened to collapse from within during his presidency. The same thing would have happened if we had had another president from either party, as they had been crumbling for some time. But conservatives give him all the credit. Oh, and don't forget the Iran-Contra mess.

So I'd say his presidency is about as mediocre as his film career. And his basic personality runs through it all. Of course they're connected.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

[–] emjee-1 8 years ago

"...And the Soviet Union just happened to collapse from within during his presidency. The same thing would have happened if we had had another president from either party, as they had been crumbling for some time. But conservatives give him all the credit. Oh, and don't forget the Iran-Contra mess..."

Funny though, even the most liberal commentators disagree with you on that. Because it was the Reagan administration that promoted "Glasnost" and "Perestroka". It sure wasn't Carter and it is doubtful it would have have happened if Mondale (Carters VP) had been elected. It wouldnt have been a priority for the dems. I wonder if you also think it was just a coincidence that Billy Clinton just happened to be on the tarmac in Arizona the day the Atty General was there and then just a few days later the fbi comes out and says Hilarity wouldnt be indicted.