Submarine Seahawk
Submarine Seahawk
| 01 December 1958 (USA)
Submarine Seahawk Trailers

For his first command in the Pacific war a by-the-book officer is ordered to take his submarine on a reconnaissance mission to locate a fleet of Japanese fighting ships the Allies have lost track of. At first, the rest of the crew resent his distant manner and the way he keeps avoiding taking on the Japs.

Reviews
Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
brislack I was very surprised to see John Bentley in this movie. I remember him in the distant past as a particularly wooden actor in British 'B' films. Maybe that is why casting chose him for his part as a non-communicative, wooden, officer!All the same, to me as a Brit, he actually sounded like an American and 'rose to the part!'. Maybe the best actor in the thing.My title above is a saying that refers to the old Royal Navy warships of the past, which were often called wooden walls. Thought you all might like to know that!As for the movie itself, well it has already been covered in the above posts. Not a good war film. Was this mission something that really happened in the Pacific War?
gary1792-1 Oh, lord this is a bad movie. I was in the hospital awaiting gall bladder surgery when I first saw this piece of crud. The best thing I can say is that it made me look forward to the surgery.A lousy storyline and awful dialogue. As an example, when the sub is ordered out to sea for a difficult mission one of the sub command officers says to an admiral, "I don't like it." The admiral responds, "Talk to the man who invented war." I almost choked on my red jello.There is a whole load of very familiar stock footage in this thing. Normally, I've got no problem with that, but did they have to use everything they could get their hands on?I will give them credit for economy, though. I think I counted a total of 9 sailors on this boat, including the captain. Every time the scene cut away from the bridge and showed the crew, it was the same five guys. Pretty funny.If you happen to see this film is coming on, please miss it. Go to Europe if you have to, just miss it.
NavyOrion You've seen this movie before, done by everybody from Cary Grant ("Destination Tokyo") to Clark Gable ("Run Silent Run Deep") to Glenn Ford ("Torpedo Run"), and done better in pretty much every case.This is a cast of nobody-you-ever-heard-of (for good reasons; I hope they didn't quit their day jobs) in a stock WWII plot about a sub on a secret mission. The acting is atrocious, the characters are incredibly clichéd (especially annoying: the short enlisted "comic relief" Jerry Lewis clone), and there are plot holes big enough to drive a submarine through.If that were all it had, I'd give "Submarine Seahawk" maybe 2 stars, as an almost complete waste of film. However, this movie is saved from the scrap pile by better than average effects (some borrowed from other films), particularly in the climactic scene of the air assault on the Japanese flotilla. It's the explosions, fires, and splashes that usually give the model work in naval movies that shot-in-the-bathtub look. But especially considering how long ago this movie was made (and its obviously meager budget) those visuals were very nicely done. If for no other reason (and I sure can't think of any) this movie is worth watching for the impressive effects in that scene.What's the best way to see "Submarine Seahawk"? Do as I did the first time I saw it, and miss the first hour or so. (I only wish I had missed that part again on my second viewing.) 9 stars for the attack scene, 2 for the rest of the movie.
inspt71-1 *possible spoilers* This is a terrible, cheap, no good submarine movie. I haven't seen all of it but I don't want to. Finding out that this movie's submarine shots and war scenes were from other war movies like "Destination Tokyo" and "Air Force." Why did they even bother to make this movie in the first place? If they spent more than 10 dollars to make this movie, i'd be amazed. The actors in this might be okay, but if they would have just made a better story and created their own battle scenes for heaven sake, this movie might have been better. If you're interested in seeing it's action scenes, Watch the movies I mentioned above. They are a heck of a lot better than this.