Geoffrey DeLeons
I want to make it clear that I liked this film. The acting was good, the cinematography outstanding and the story compelling. The scenes of Bligh at the Admiralty were excellent and well-timed. However, there were some missing elements that would have enhanced the effectiveness of the scenes and the movie as-a-whole.Most of what I consider to be critical-yet-absent stuff is character development: What is Bligh's past, and why was he so adamant on challenging the "roaring forties" at Cape Horn? How did Mr. Christian become an officer in the Royal Navy and then, quickly, lose all sense-of-duty or even interest in sailing after a Polynesian girl gives him "the eye"?Other un-adressed equations are: Just how dangerous was it for a ship to challenge Cape Horn? Could they have done it some other time-of-year? Was Bligh's intended revisit to the Cape the sole reason for the crew's mutiny?One scene I found most unconvincing was the scene where Bligh barks out orders to clean and maintain the ship. This would have been de rigeur on any vessel at the time. Crews clean and maintain and test endlessly, and the scenes of the crew demoralized and unhappy about having to clean are laughable.The music by Vangelis did not help the scenes, nor add to their effectiveness. I will never know just how dangerous the mission "around the horn" would have been for the Bounty, because it is never explained: Just a few more lines of dialogue would have been adequate.If I fill in the holes, I see a lieutenant obsessed with making a mark that will earn him the rank of captain. We see a crew that has found paradise and doesn't want to leave. We see a fair first mate who is somewhat sympathetic to the crewmembers. The Bounty needed to introduce us to Bligh, the man, his history, his psychology. We needed to have-described the history of Cape Horn, in regards to previous, attempted navigation and passage of sailing vessels. We need to know why Mr. Christian incited mutiny: Because of cleaning duties? I think not. If these elements had been fleshed-out in the movie, I would have been much more engaged.
SnoopyStyle
Lieutenant William Bligh (Anthony Hopkins) is brought before a trial for the mutiny on his ship HMS Bounty. He recounts the events of his voyage to take breadfruit from Tahiti to Jamaica. He recruits his friend Fletcher Christian (Mel Gibson) to join him. Bligh vows to not lose a man and institute unconventional methods. Seaman Charles Churchill (Liam Neeson) is a violent brute and often gets into conflicts. Bad weather prevents the ship from rounding Cape Horn and Bligh's hope to circumnavigating the globe. Fryer (Daniel Day-Lewis) had argued against Cape Horn and Bligh replaces him with Christian as second in command. In Tahiti, Churchill agitates to leave the Bounty and stay on the islands. Christian gets the chief's daughter pregnant and is conflicted about leaving. The Bounty leaves Tahiti with Bligh growing tyrannical as a reaction to Christian's laissez-faire. Then Bligh vows to try Cape Horn once again.This is filled with great actors. They are all good. The older versions have Bligh as the villain and Christian as the hero. This one isn't quite so simplistic. Christian is more of a blank for the most part while Bligh tries to be sympathetic as much as he's allowed. Hopkins isn't doing a crazed dictator as usual but a needy outsider. I'm not sure about the constant back and forth between the time periods. The later time period adds very little to the movie. It is far too long already. The movie needs to get to Tahiti earlier. The turn in Tahiti is terrific with Hopkins finding another gear. The film looks beautiful. If Roger Donaldson could push the pace more and reduce the over 2 hour running time, this could be an even better film.
SimonJack
It's ironic that this 1984 film, "The Bounty," would be the least popular full-length movie about the famous mutiny. It received no awards or major nominations. It had an excellent cast, with top actors and stars on the rise. And, this is the most factual and true rendition of all the films made. It is also the most detailed in the purpose of the voyage, the ship and its crew, and the relationships of the men. It includes the mutiny, the voyage of survival by Bligh and his faithful crew members, and the fate of Fletcher Christian and the rest of the mutineersSo, for its historical rendering, "The Bounty" excels. Many of these details are not covered, or are skimmed over in the more popular movies. For instance, Bligh was a Royal Navy Lieutenant – not a captain. Bligh was the only navy man and only actual officer on board. Christian was not a first lieutenant, but a master. He and all the rest of the leaders of the crew had the ranks of noncommissioned officers and came from the merchant marine. Christian was a known friend of Bligh's before the voyage. Bligh's first mate had already been chosen, so Christian signed on as junior to him. But, Bligh later removed the other mate, Fryer, and put Christian in his place. Bligh was an accomplished and skilled naval officer. He had served under Captain Cook on his third voyage to the South Pacific, so he alone knew the area and Tahiti. Bligh was not the fierce commander who doled out heavy physical punishment. He was more lenient than most captains in that regard. But, he had a temper, and made many verbal miscues as an officer. All of these things and many more facts of the true story are in this film. It is an excellent account of the voyage of the HMS Bounty, the mutiny, the successful 3,500-mile sea voyage of Bligh and his loyalists on a small boat, and the plight of the mutineers. So, why then is it not the best, the favorite of all the movies? I think it's because the characters of the other films were much more interesting. Look at the 1935 film, for instance. Charles Laughton was outstanding as a fierce, fear-inspiring captain. Clark Gable was much more interesting as the flamboyant office and dashing ladies' man. And, then there's the amount of time spent on so much of the factual details. I think the 1984 film spent far too much time covering the five-month layover on Tahiti. The sailing scenes were better and more interesting in the earlier films. The performances in "The Bounty" were all very good. But, the screenwriters needed to do something to make the leads more interesting – especially Christian and Fryer. There were a couple of excellent supporting performances in this movie. Most notable was that by Liam Neeson as Seaman Charles Churchill. I am among those who find the 1935 Bounty with Laughton and Gable the most exciting and entertaining. I think that drives home a good point that people should not rely too much on movies for accurate history. A movie like the 1935 film can entertain by playing loose with or not including many of the facts or true aspects of the story. And, it can wet one's appetite for history. But, we need then to check the true story in the Encyclopedia Britannica or other sound historical sources. I thought viewers might be interested in some more facts. Although it had three masts, the Bounty was quite small as could be seen in the early loading scenes. It was only 90 feet long, 24 feet wide, and displaced a mere 230 tons. It had a crew of one officer and 45 men. Compare that to a Man-Of-War, the types of ships we have seen in some of the great naval movies and swashbucklers. For instance, Lord Nelson's ship at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 (just 15 years after the Bounty mutiny) displaced 3,500 tons. It had three masts, each with three to four sails (some as long as 200 feet), and measured 227 feet long and 52 feet wide. It carried a crew of 850 men – nearly 20 times the size of the Bounty's crew. And, it had 104 canons; 4 in the bow, 8 astern, and 56 each aligned on three gun decks on each side. It could make 8 to 9 knots an hour – about 10 miles per hour. The HMS Victory is still in service as the flagship of the Royal Navy Fleet Admiral at Portsmouth, England. MGM used existing sailing ships for its 1935 film to represent the Bounty and the Pandora. Fewer tall ships existed by 1962, and MGM built a replica for its film that year with Marlon Brando. After the movie it sailed around the world as a tourist attraction, but sank off the coast of North Carolina after the crew abandoned it during a hurricane in 2012. Another replica was made for this 1984 film, and today it serves as a tourist boat in Honk Kong Harbor. In 1957, divers from National Geographic discovered the ruins of the Bounty at Pitcairn Island. And, that island today has about 56 residents, descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the Tahitians who went with them.
Marcus McLearen
When watching movies like this It is important to remember the extraordinary journey that it really was. Back then people hadn't done a lot of this sort of thing and most hadn't even left the shores of England much less circumnavigate the globe for fruit trees no less. It seems a well scripted and well acted movie with a good, solid theme and many (at the time, soon to be) accomplished actors. It's nice to see some of these guys when they were still young. Definitely a good watch and worth some of your worthless time. Simply thinking about trading places with any of these men makes me feel like I'm still a boy at 30. Although the story is well known, the director seemed to want you to get caught up in what you didn't know. There is a definite isolation of view when it comes to the divination of officer and enlisted (as is the case with many militarily oriented movies)and in this, I think it fits. There is a sense that even though the acting is scripted, it is still realistic and can draw a sense of what really happened. All in all... it's still just a movie about some guys mutinying and so in the end that's what you're waiting for, but for me it's always about the small parts of pleasant in between.
