Mutiny on the Bounty

Not quite as good as you'd hope.

It's fair to say you are a Captain disciplined, and you like to see subordinates lose skin, the cat o' nine tails is a smash, as they're beaten, whipped and slashed, filling your sails with such an overwhelming wind. If all else fails you go the distance and keelhaul, dragging the guilty of just what on a long trawl, prevents the crew from going soft, like rotten food they have to scoff, although you never hear the sounds, of their death squall. Although this time it seems you've pushed the boat too far, Fletcher Christian takes his chance to fight and spar, your ejected and cast-off, mutinous rabble will pay the cost, as you're left to drift for weeks, under the stars.

Brando's accent - what's that all about.

I wonder if they made more three-hour-plus films in the 1960s than any other decade? It seems that way. Here is another one. This also is a re-make from a 1935 version of the famous story

I liked this 'Mutiny On The Bounty' better than the critics did, who got annoyed at Marlon Brando's British accent. I found nothing wrong with it and I usually am critical about that sort of thing myself. Brando gave a solid performance.

Trevor Howard was convincing as the sadistic "Captain Bligh" and Tarita was fair as the love interest "Maimiti." The cinematography might have been the best feature of the film, a definite movie for widescreen as a lot of these mid '50s-to-mid '60s films were. There are some beautiful shots in here, beginning with those Tahiti sunsets. The color in this movie is magnificent.

Although not particularly a film you might watch over and over, I found no major fault with it except for perhaps the romance which was a bit sappy. The adventure, acting and photography were all top-notch and the three hours went by fairly fast.

This is my favorite version of Mutiny of the Bounty, and I think it takes a very unfair pounding on the basis of comparisons to the original. The production is superb, the story is paced a lot better, and it details Captain Bligh's cruelty more thoroughly. I can't vouch for the historical accuracy of the film, Brando's concept as a foppish Mr. Christian is a bit hard to believe, although he played it extremely well. Trevor Howard's Bligh is one of the most underrated performances in the world. For him to take a role heavily identified with another actor, play it his own way, and pull it off is extremely difficult. I give him enormous credit for this superb performance. I think the biggest criticism of this film is that it's not the original, but still extremely well done under the circumstances and very entertaining. ***

MGM's 1962 remake of their own 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty, makes the older film look hokey at best, and like an outright joke at worst. The newer version takes a far more realistic and honest look at every facet of the legendary mutiny. The movie potrays the two key characters in the story, Captain Bligh (Trevor Howard), and Fletcher Christian (Marlon Brando), as real men, and not like the cardboard cutouts as was the case in the 1935 version.

Howard's Bligh is brilliant, and not at all like the prancing cartoonish Charles Laughton version in '35. And when it comes to Christian, the protaganist of the mutiny, Brando makes an admirable effort to capture the essence of the the fopish and aristocratic character as portrayed in the Nordhoff and Hall book upon which both MGM "Bountys" are based. Brando becomes Christian, in the 1935 movie Clark Gable as Christian is just Gable as Gable, and that's that. Richard Harris as crew member Mills, is another solid portrayal in the 1962 movie.

Don't get me wrong, the 1935 movie's fun, but the 1962 movie is infinitely more impressive in all respects, especially its use of a real ship made just for the film, the awesome "shots" of life at see in the late 1700s, and of course the spectacular location filming in Tahiti.

1935's Mutiny on the Bounty, was a fine film in its day, but it doesn't stand the test of time, 1962's film stands that test. Is it a great movie, probably not, but it is a very good one. Considering that MGM did not deliver the ship on time for filming before the bad weather set in in Tahiti, MGM's firing of legendary director Carol Reed, and other miscalculations mainly attributable to producer Aaron Rosenberg, the film is a remarkable achievement.

The studio used an off-form Lewis Milestone as a replacement for director Reed. Once they decided that Reed wasn't their cup of tea, they just tried to slide by with Milestone, instead of securing the services of one of the many still vital directing greats working in the early 1960s. A movie of epic proportions like 1962's Mutiny on the Bounty, cried out for a William Wyler, a David Lean, or a Fred Zinneman, to take over the helm once Reed was canned.

When the movie didn't hit like gangbusters, MGM's publicity machine moved quickly to "sandbag" their star, and the lemmings of the early 60s entertainment press corps swallowed the studio's propaganda whole. It was open-season on Brando, and it was shameful, but anybody who has seen the movie and also read the book, knows that Brando's Christian is a very solid performance. I'm sure Brando was peevish and nettlesome at times during production, Trevor Howard says as much in his biography, but to blame Brando for the film's bloated final cost and its lack of epic earnings is ludicrous.

I love 1962's Mutiny on the Bounty, it should have been better, but its still one beautiful movie. It is an under-appreciated and highly underrated movie. I strongly recommend it, to me calling Brando and Howard's Mutiny on the Bounty of 1962, a minor film, as one IMDb movie fan recently did, is blasphemous. The truth is MGM, just fumbled the ball on Mutiny on the Bounty in 1962, despite all of their ineptitude during production, they still had what should have been a major hit. But they opened it as a road-show movie in just a few theatres nation wide instead of in as many theatres as possible like the studios do with all major movies today. Despite MGM's poor efforts 41-years ago, movie fans today can scoop up the old lion's fumble and enjoy this exciting high seas adventure/love story.

It took a better book, Richard Hough's "Mr. Bligh and Mr. Christian," to produce a better movie rendition of the true life Mutiny on the Bounty. That book was the basis for the magnificent, "The Bounty," starring Anthony Hopkins as Bligh, and Mel Gibson as Christian. Also adding lustre to that movie were Liam Neeson, and Daniel Day-Lewis.

While the initial critical reception given MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY was not as favorable as that given the original 1935 film, seen nowadays it is a very impressive telling of the Bounty story with some fine performances and a stirring musical score by Bronislau Kaper that fully captures the mood with some haunting and truly striking themes that give the film added dimension. The pictorial splendor of the technicolor photography at sea and in Tahiti is never less than eyefilling. A thrilling high point is the storm at sea with Kaper's music rising to powerful intensity.

Furthermore, there are two fascinating performances by Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard. Howard is not quite as showy in the role as the scenery-chewing Laughton but his characterization is a bit more complex. Brando does an excellent job as Christian, posturing in the manner of a gentleman and speaking with an upper crust British accent that is entirely credible. Indeed, when he reaches the mutinous moment in a rage of uncontrolled anger, he is at the top of his acting form. Even so, some of his most effective moments are quietly underplayed. His performance deserved an Oscar nomination--but with so much bad publicity surrounding the film and the hardships and strains involved in the making, Hollywood apparently gave him the cold shoulder. Years later, they did the same to Russell Crowe for his bad boy behavior.

Technically, of course, the film is far superior to the B&W 1935 Gable-Laughton film. Gorgeous sunsets are backdrops to the ship at sea and the island scenes in Tahiti are gorgeous to behold.

A missing element from the earlier film is the absence of the character played by Franchot Tone. Indeed, Tone was nominated for a Best Actor award, along with Gable. There are numerous other differences but this take on the story is a good one, every bit as valid as the 1935 film.

With all of the bad publicity surrounding the film relegated to the past, we can look at this film with a fresh viewpoint today and enjoy it for the entertaining blockbuster that it is. Highly recommended.