Gli ammutinati del Bounty

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.

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.

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.

I first heard of this movie in the spring of 1996. It surprised me to learn that there was a remake to the 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty which I had recently watched for the 10th time. I hardly figured that the likes of a slurring Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian and a cast of personally unfamiliar characters("who was Trevor Howard",I asked myself) could top the swashbuckling Clark Gable as Christian and the ripping story that the cast of the 1935 gem pulled off. How wrong I was to doubt the 1962 Mutiny on the Bounty. I loved it! I do not think that it is better than the 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty, but it stands as a different take. While the older Mutiny told a by the numbers high-seas adventure with sword fights and glitzy hollywood melodrama, the 1962 version turns out to as less of an action movie and more of a drama. It chooses to downplay the story more to better concentrate on the surprisly complex characters. How complex? Take the tormented Mr. Fryer, Captain Bligh's 3rd in command. He sees the wrongful treatment that his captain is giving the crew, but he does not want to go against the navy. On the other hand, there is McCoy, the old 30 year veteran--someone who seemly would have experienced cruelty similar to Bligh's--who mutinied along with the younger members. Then there is Brown, who ever the gentleman, tries to be loyal to Bligh,but, in the end, he must obey his gentle ways and go against the captain's harsh methods. Although Mills plays a key role in the film, his character does not hold much mystery; the captain overreacts too much, and he does not think it right. He does something about it. All of these different characters and more, play off one another beautifully. When the mutiny does happen, watching them work together(or against each other) is truly beautiful. The production values stir the soul. The gigantic bounty, the breathtaking location footage of Tahiti, the vast panaramic shots of the Atlantic Ocean, and the loud/proud moody score accented with Tahitian percussion. The dialogue is quick, clever and too the point.

All of these elements help to elevate the core story in Mutiny on the Bounty: Bligh and Christian. As Bligh, Trevor Howard changes the character immortalized by Charles Laughten in the 1935 version. Instead of inhuman, demonic tyrant, Howard portrays Bligh simply as an excruciatingly stern captain focused(a little overzealously) on doing the best job that he can. If his mean do not pursue his goals with the same fervor. He gets impatient then frustrated then angry and then violent all in quick succession. He makes for a very realistically workaholic without a life, and he wants everyone else to be a workaholic, too. I thought Clark Gable's Fletcher Christian could not be topped...until I saw Marlon Brando undergo a sheer transformation playing the role. After seeing Brando in ON THE WATERFRONT and the equally American THE GODFATHER, I could not imagine him playing 18th Century British officer...but he did. Brando perfects the haughty, posturing walk. He perfects the clipped, accented speech. He perfects the foppish, effeminate walk of a "true" English gentlemen of high-born connections. Brando does it so remarkably well that one cannot imagine such sissified character leading a mutiny against a tyrannical man like Bligh. Brando's transformation of Christian from sissy to mutiny leader baffles. Unlike Gable, he doesn't gloss over the decision to be a mutineer. Gable made it look easy and as the "right thing to do". Realistically, is it the right thing to do? To throw away your career that you worked hard for? To throw away your life? All for the sake of a feeling a moral belief? It may sound hard, but when faced with a such a delimma, it can be agonizing...which is exactly what Brando captures to a tee, right down to the last frame.

Mutiny on the Boutny 1962 truly needs to be seen. Please don't listen to critics. This movie is fantastic.

This is my favorite version of Mutiny of the Bounty, and I think it takes a very unfair pounding mainly 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 outstanding 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. ***