Le pantere dei mari

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.

This kind of war film would have been perfect for a director like Fred S Sears or Lesley Selander - because this western maker also gave us several war films - but not Nathan Juran. I have always considered him as a pretty good B pictures director, as Jack Arnold. That's Juran's only war film. The peculiarity is to have here future President of the United States Ronnie Reagan and his real life wife too: Nancy Davis. That's all. If you crave for war - submarine flicks - why not. I have nothing against this film. Inspired from actual events, ok...So what? For a movie buff, it's worth the watch, but certainly nothing more.

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)

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.

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.