Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

ElMaruecan82 27 years after the classic precursor, a new "Mutiny of the Bounty" movie was to be directed by the same MGM studio, becoming one of the most expensive movies of its time if you consider the budget it took to a/ build a size-by-size replica of the iconic ship (and even a smaller one for some particular shots), b/ shoot the film in Tahiti, in the very spot where the ship set ashore less than two centuries earlier, and c/ get Marlon Brando to play Fletcher Christian. It was this casting that undermined the film's release and reception, which makes "Mutiny of the Bounty" an authentic case of failure that shouldn't have happened.This is a film that benefited from the long experience of director Lewis Milestone who made the groundbreaking "All Quiet on the Western Front", it benefited from Trevor Howard who as Captain Bligh, though older than his character, managed to make him tough, rough and far above the cartoon-version (though enjoyable) Charles Laughton played in 1935. The film also had the Technicolor visuals, the extras who looked like real seamen, the flogging where you could "feel" the red stains on the backbones, the Tahitian extras, everything exuded a hint of authenticity, immediately ruined whenever Brando started talking. I'm a fan of Brando, "The Godfather" is my all-time favorite movie and "Bounty" was my first Brando movie but God, I never realized how an actor could be unfit for a role, vocally and visually, until I saw this film again, as an adult.The problem comes right from the start when we're introduced to his Christian, he's dressed like a dandy, coming with two women and an irritatingly snobbish printed on his face. This debonair and seductive attitude worked perfectly in his later film "The Ugly American" but in "Mutiny on the Bounty", it was the most puzzling angle because it made Christian the least likely man to care for Bligh's tyrannical tantrums. So, it has less to do with Brando's acting talent than the characterization, something just rings false or doesn't allow a transition to the plot-structuring antagonism to be believable. It is very unfortunate because for the most part of the film, the performances of the other actors, with a honorable mention to Richard Harris, do justice to the story.The film isn't less iconic for all that, like a good wine; it aged fairly well. As the plot advances, even Brando seems more at ease in Christian's shoes and one can see he's not acting at all when Tarita has this luscious, magnificent hip dance to seduce him (we know reality joined fiction in that particular chapter of his life). While the Tahiti part was the weakest point of the 1935 film, in 1962, at a time where audiences were mature enough to enjoy some nudity and sexual innuendo, there was no need to cover the fact that the seamen had more than enjoyed their little trip, giving more attenuating circumstances to their mutiny, another pivotal plot point that felt forced in the first film, where Bligh was portrayed as a one-dimensional villain.After the mutiny, the two movies diverge dramatically. In the first, we have to admire Bligh's feat that consisted on taking 18 men to the Island of Timor 3600 miles away, Bligh defeated the odds and accomplished a naval exploit, to earn the admiration of any sailor, and that elevated Laughton above his "bad guy" status. Unfortunately, Bligh remains clean-shaven the whole film, and an ill-thought ellipse shows him directly stating his case in front of a court and being given a sermon he didn't get in real life. Bligh deserved a bit better. But I guess the point was to show the aftermath of the mutiny, in a less romantic tone than the first film. This one has a darker ending for Christian and foresees the tragic fate of the mutineers. A prologue and epilogue were shot to make it more explicit but didn't end up in the actual footage.Not the wisest choice because the film wasn't too long so it couldn't afford fifteen minutes more (the film is everything but a bore) and knowing that the lack of leadership lead these men to their death (only letting their descendants to live a peaceful life in Pitcairn Islands) gives a credit to the theories stated by Bligh about men needing rules and rulers. And I think any good "Bounty" story should be able to give the credit Bligh deserves, Bligh who seems far from the villainous and cruel depiction his legacy has been tarnished with, but not far enough. The film still seems entrapped in some mission to make a hero out of Fletcher Christian, which wasn't too difficult for Gable (although he never really risked his neck in the film) but it was too much asking for Brando.A quick look on the trivia page would have the most afflicting effect, everyone complained about Brando's behavior, the director didn't even shoot the last scenes, Richard Harris who admired Brando wanted to talk to a log rather than him in his final confrontation etc. Point is everyone complained about Brando's diva behavior, only equaled by Elizabeth Taylor's Prima Donna caprices in "Cleopatra". "Mutiny on the Bounty" was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, and was one of the highest-grossing movies of the year, but it was a commercial failure that marked the beginning of the end for the studio system, the end of Milestone's career and the fading of Brando's stardom, until his come-back in "The Godfather". Quite an irony for a movie that is still enjoyable in its own right.This is one of these school-cases when a bad casting ruins a film, as if Brando was the real-life Bligh on the set. After watching the film, I'm not surprised that a third version of the story needed to be made, twenty years later.

sddavis63 There are times when I wonder why Hollywood bothers to do remakes of classic movies. That thought did occur to me as I prepared to watch this 1962 remake of the 1935 classic. Although it wasn't without its problems, I fell in love with the '35 version when I first saw it as a teenager, and I confess that I had my doubts about taking in any of the remakes of the story. Both films suffer from the real curse of any movie based on true events - they take way too many liberties with history. Bligh's court-martial, as far as I know, didn't admonish him after acquitting him (in fact, he eventually rose to the rank of Admiral.) Christian's desire to return to England and his death after the burning of the Bounty are pure fantasy. One wonders why they were included in this movie, since they didn't add anything particularly noteworthy to the story. But historical inaccuracies are to be expected in any historical epic, so one shouldn't become too consumed by them. The basics are here - the voyage of the Bounty to Tahiti to collect breadfruit, the mutiny led by Christian and the escape of the mutineers to Pitcairn Island.Visually, this movie is stunning, which is probably due at least in part to the fact that unlike the '35 version it's obviously filmed in colour, which gives an entirely different feel to the scenes shot in Tahiti especially. There's also the fact that the studio went to the trouble and expense of essentially recreating the Bounty - building an actual replica ship, which also gave a more realistic feel to this production. (The replica sank during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.) Technically, as would be expected, the special effects are better in this movie. My reactions to the cast are interesting. I thought that this film offered a much more nuanced view of Bligh and Christian than the '35 movie. Here, Bligh comes across as less pompous and sadistic - although certainly a strict and perhaps extreme disciplinarian, and Christian seems more fleshed out - less noble, perhaps, more reluctant to act against Bligh and much more beset by doubts. Trevor Howard's performance as Bligh was good, although I have to confess that he does not replace Charles Laughton in my mind as Captain Bligh - Laughton's will still be the face I associate with the man, and Howard was a few years too old to play the part. Bligh was 33 when he took command of the Bounty; Howard was almost 50 when this was made. I liked Brando as Christian. I know that a lot of people didn't, and his performance was perceived as one reason (perhaps the main reason) that the movie wasn't well received. But I liked him - although Brando was also much older than Fletcher Christian. I actually thought he was better than Clark Gable in 1935. Gable, to me, never really captured the part of a British naval officer, and in some ways never seemed to try very much. Brando, on the other hand, did seem to try to get into the mind of the character and I thought he worked well. That puts me in the minority, but I thought his performance was fine. The supporting cast (the most notable being Richard Harris as Seaman Mills) held their own, but as with any adaptation of the story, those who play Bligh and Christian will make or break it.I appreciated the attempt to inject a little more humour into the story than the earlier version. A lot of that humour revolved around the Bounty's time in Tahiti and what the British perceived as the relatively "loose" moral standards of the Tahitian women. The scene between Howard and Brando where Bligh is trying to order Christian to return to Tahiti to make love to the Tahitian king's daughter (because the Tahitians were insulted that Bligh ordered an end to their encounter when he found them on the island, perceiving that as an insulting suggestion that Englishmen were too good for Tahitian women) - with Christian feigning ignorance of what he meant, forcing Bligh to finally give him a direct order to do the deed, so to speak - had me smiling.This movie was too long. The runtime of almost 3 hours could have easily been shaved by probably close to a third without much being lost. It was a very expensive movie by the standards of early 1962, and in fact, given its production costs and relatively low box office receipts, it's probably fair to consider this a flop. Judging this movie on its merits, though, I'd say that would be inaccurate. I'd personally say that it's not as good as the 1935 version of the story - but it's pretty close. I think it was a pretty good remake - perhaps one of the better remakes of classic films that I've seen - and it probably deserved to be regarded more highly by the critics of its day - although it's rating of 7.2 here (as of writing) suggests that this film has been better received by successor generations than by its own generation. (8/10)

stephen-hoyland How this pathetic debacle has managed to scrape such a high score Is beyond all comprehension. Was Marlon Brando REALLY an Oscar winner? The pathetic, fat half-wit can't even manage a half-decent English accent! His must rank as the all-time useless attempt at pretending to be English.It's not just Inaccurate - It's weird,totally strange. If you want to enjoy an historically accurate version of these events then watch the 1935 'Mutiny on the Bounty' - with the masterful Charles Laughton; and at least Clarke Gable can manage a convincing English accent. This movie Is a pointless and pathetic disgrace. Americans are absolutely useless at historical reproduction - apart from 'Cowboys and Indians' -perhaps because they've got no history!

JoeB131 Which meant everything about it had to be epic.Captain Bligh had to be painted a villain of the darkest hue (he wasn't) while Fletcher Christian was a tormented hero because Marlon Brando was playing him.The scenes on the ship are indeed epic (the Bounty in this film is probably larger than the real ship was.) Again, this was the period when the movies saw Television as the competitor instead of the after-market, and therefore big movies had to be "epic". You can't see this on your little tube! You know the story. Captain Bligh is sent on an impossible mission to bring breadfruit from Tahiti to Jamaica, but his cruel leadership of the bounty causes his crew to revolt against him. Brandon plays Fletcher Christian as a leading man type better than Clark Gable or Mel Gibson did, but his performance is the least believable. (Oddly, Gibson's interpretation seems most like a real person.) The action scenes are epic compared to other versions, and that makes it worth watching.I would be remiss if I didn't point out the replica Bounty built for this film wasn't lost this year in Hurricane Sandy. Just thought I'd mention that.