18
Metascore
10 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 50The New York TimesStephen HoldenThe New York TimesStephen HoldenLeaky PT boat of a comedy, descended from the television series.
- 50VarietyLeonard KladyVarietyLeonard KladyTime and adapters have not been kind to the fun-loving series.
- 40Los Angeles TimesJohn AndersonLos Angeles TimesJohn AndersonAlthough it comes under the increasingly crowded category of Why Did They Bother, McHale's Navy does offer an example of a movie that tries to be all things to all people. As long as they're 13 and male.
- 25TV Guide MagazineMaitland McDonaghTV Guide MagazineMaitland McDonaghThis shotgun marriage of coarse laughs and low-rent action cliches is, of course, utterly predictable: Cutting-edge comedy isn't lurking under the corpses of old TV shows.
- 25Chicago Sun-TimesChicago Sun-TimesMcHale's Navy is an astonishingly bad film. Even if you never saw the early '60s TV series on which it is loosely based, you'll hate it. [18 Apr 1997, p.39]
- 12Philadelphia InquirerSteven ReaPhiladelphia InquirerSteven ReaIf the '60s sitcom McHale's Navy was a poor man's Sergeant Bilko, the new big-screen McHale is a poverty-stricken, starving-to-death, brain-dead person's answer to last year's not-so-hot Steve Martin movie, Sgt. Bilko. [19 Apr 1997, p.D08]
- 0San Francisco ChronicleMick LaSalleSan Francisco ChronicleMick LaSalleIt's even less funny than it sounds. By the end, this soporific comedy makes 105 minutes feel more like a two-year hitch.
- 0Austin ChronicleRussell SmithAustin ChronicleRussell SmithNo originality, no memorable characters, no comic timing, and no good jokes equal no fun for the audience.
- 0The Globe and Mail (Toronto)Liam LaceyThe Globe and Mail (Toronto)Liam LaceyNot funny, suspenseful, moving or even offensive enough to want to torpedo. Just devoid of any conceivable value. [19 Apr 1997, p.C13]