User reviews

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 mutineers

So, 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 officer 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.

The latest retelling of this tale shifts a lot of the blame about the voyage over to Fletcher Christian and the fact that he and a lot of the crew had simply gone native.

One of the great villainous portrayals on the screen is Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh from the stirring 1935 film. Laughton is pretty unforgettable with that jutting lower lip and that bellowing voice at the crew. Anthony Hopkins has given us a kinder, gentler view of Bligh which may be far closer to the facts.

Bligh certainly was a stern taskmaster as a captain of a naval vessel. In fact he served with distinction in several naval battles during the Napoleonic wars. What he unfortunately had was a sarcastic tongue, something not really needed for what in fact was a peaceful voyage to obtain breadfruit plants.

Scurvy which is caused by a Vitamin C deficiency ran rampant on the ocean going ships of the time, none more so than in British ships because they had the most of them. This was a pretty important voyage, to bring back Tahitian breadfruit to see if it could be cultivated in the climate of the United Kingdom. Maybe the mistake was in not sending a civilian ship to do the job, who knows.

Anyway Bligh punished men who got out of line, no more so than what was normal. The problem arose when after months at sea, his crew got just too used to frolicking among the female population of Tahiti. That would also unfortunately include Bligh's second mate Fletcher Christian, played in this version by Mel Gibson.

It wasn't Bligh's fault they lingered in Tahiti, the plants had to be mature enough to stand the voyage to Great Britain. Nevertheless the lack of discipline there, contrasted with what was expected of British seaman on a naval vessel, a return to that life was what led to the mutiny.

Certainly Fletcher Christian by all accounts was a charismatic guy, he would have to have been to get the men to mutiny. He was portrayed by four charismatic actors, Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Marlon Brando, and now Mel Gibson. Only his intervention prevented the men from killing Bligh and a few others.

What I like most about this version is the fact that it does give due attention to Bligh's remarkable voyage in a long boat to Timor which was some 1500 miles from where he and the loyalists were cast adrift. It was a remarkable piece of seamanship, no mutinies during that voyage.

The luckless Captain Bligh also had the misfortune to be the Governor of New South Wales, appointed by the Crown, and was overthrown there in a power struggle with the merchants of the colony. That didn't help his historical reputation a bit.

Among the crew of the Bounty you will find Daniel Day-Lewis as John Fryer who Bligh replaced mid voyage with Fletcher Christian and Liam Neeson as one of the mutineers. Laurence Olivier plays Admiral Hood who led the court of inquiry that cleared Bligh of blame for the mutiny.

Still Hopkins and Gibson dominate the film with their skills and talents. Who knows who might bring the saga of this troubled ship next to the screen. This story has fascinated us for generations.

I'm only giving this film 8 stars, because as good as it is "the Bounty" still leaves some undeserved blots on the reputation of a great and courageous man. A bit more truth and this film would get a TEN from me.

There have been many film treatments of this amazing story, but only "The Bounty" gets it even halfway right. The 1935 Lawton/Gable "Mutiny on the Bounty" is 49% balderdash and 51% falsehood. The Trevor Howard/Marlon Bando stinker is even less factual. "The Bounty", however is pretty good history in many places, especially Bligh's court-martial and the actual mutiny sequence, which is almost word-for-word what Bligh recorded in his own writings on the matter. The ship itself is correctly represented, right down to the figurehead – a woman in a blue riding habit, which makes no sense until one realizes that HMAV Bounty was originally a merchant ship called the Bethia.

The movie does take liberties with history. Some characters are composites and some important figures are absent entirely. In the plot Bligh seeks out Christian to be his second officer. In reality Christian was a friend of Bligh's wife's family, and it was he who sought a posting on Bounty; Bligh didn't solicit his participation. In fact Bligh jiggered the ship's roster to make room for Christian.

But the worst departure from fact is the business about Cape Horn and circumnavigation. The movie wants us to believe that Bligh chose the route for his own glory. Not true. Bligh complained to the Admiralty about the chosen course before they set sail from England, thinking it too dangerous for such a small vessel. But he was overruled. The return trip was never intended to go by way of Cape Horn. The cargo was breadfruit seedlings, a tropical plant that can't endure the kind of temperatures encountered in the Drake Passage or the Straits of Magellan. Bligh was forbidden to return via this route. Even if he wanted to such a course of action would have ruined his career. Also the mutiny occurred near Tofua, about 1300 miles west of Tahiti, the wrong direction to sail if you're bound for Cape Horn.

Bligh was a man and a professional. Christian was a silly, overwrought upper class schoolboy who committed a vile crime over puppy love of a Polynesian girl. He got away with attempted mass murder, and 200 years later people still praise him. Bligh was a true hero who hasn't got justice yet.

Being a fan of British naval history, and also a fan of Anthony Hopkins, I love this film. I think it is severely under-rated. The acting (particularly by Hopkins) is superb, and the cinematography and realism are stunning.

Unlike some of the previous comments for this film I think it is pretty loyal to the true historical facts of the real mutiny. Alright, there are a few minor changes to fact, but nothing that radically alters the story. Basically Bligh was a very able and fair captain, who was let down by incompetent officers. Bligh was no more a monster than any other Royal Navy captains, the difference was other Royal Navy Captains had able commissioned officers and a squad of marines to back up their authority. Bligh was on his own, because the admiralty insisted on saving money on the bread-fruit expedition by giving Bligh a small ship and no officers. (All the officers on board were non-commissioned warrant officers, who were not employed by the Royal Navy but were in it for their own advancement, Blight was the only Royal Navy officer). This is what ultimately led to the mutiny. Bligh had no one he could rely on to back up his orders from the Admiralty. Bligh was actually an exponent of modern thinking, and treated his men with much more humanity than other Royal Navy Captains. He had learnt his trade from sailing under Captain Cook.

I think Hopkins manages to capture this in his performance. Bligh was a professional man, who grew increasingly frustrated by the incompetence and laziness of his officers. Hopkins manages to convey this sense of increasing irritation brilliantly. He felt particularly let down by Fletcher Christian, who was his friend and whom he had personally advanced up the ranks. He expected Fletcher to back up his orders, but Fletcher was more interested in his own pleasure with the Tahitian women.

On the journey out the crew were actually very happy and contented, but the trouble began when the crew began to experience the liberties and freedoms of Tahitian life, and they did not want to leave it. Bligh had to force the men to go back to their duty, and instead of having officers to back him up, the officers took the side of the men.

I think the script of this film captures the true story quite well. I saw the Clark Gable version of the story many years ago, and the only thing I remember is the portrayal of Bligh as an irrational monster, with none of the reasons behind his anger explained. In this version I feel Hopkins is more like the real Bligh. An able commander trying to carry out his orders, but let down by those around him.

The confrontation between Bligh and Christian in the captain's cabin the day before the mutiny is one of my favourite movie scenes of all time. Hopkins performance of the captain at the end of his patience is just outstanding. `Oh there are rumblings are there?'. Superb!

The only down side to this film is Mel Gibson. I can't stand the sight of him! Mind you, even he manages to pull of a good performance.

The film ends quite abruptly, with a lot of loose ends. The most fascinating parts of the true story come after the end of the film. I guess the time constraints of the film mean they had to concentrate on just the story of the mutiny.

The mutineers set up a colony on Pitcairn, and ended up all murdering each other until only one survived (Jack Adams). Those that stayed on Tahiti were captured two years later by HMS Pandora which had been dispatched after Bligh got back to England. This ship rounded up about 16 mutineers, and on the way home the Pandora hit a reef off Australia and sunk. The crew had to make an open boat journey to Coupang, the same port that Bligh's life boat had arrived at two years earlier!!

Meanwhile Bligh was promoted and sent off on another Breadfruit exhibition to Tahiti, this time the Admiralty gave him commissioned officers and a squad of marines. This mission succeeded.

When the Breadfruit plants finally reached the slave colonies in the West Indies, the slaves refused to eat the fruit as they disliked the taste. That's irony for you!

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.

If William Bligh could return to this earth his lawyers would be handing out writs and summons left, right and centre for all the appalling things that have been said about him.

Bligh was a very good seaman, an excellent navigator, and a firm but fair ship's captain. There were far worse than him in the Royal Navy. His 3,500+ mile voyage in a small open boat with his loyal crew members has never been bettered.

After the slander of the two previous films in the 30's and 60's, this film gives a far more accurate and sympathetic portrayal of Bligh, and Anthony Hopkins is excellent as always.

Not only is the story of Bligh and Christian the most famous mutiny in history, it is also the most filmed. It started with an Australian silent movie in 1916. The Aussies took another shot at filming the Bounty mutiny in 1933, providing a young Errol Flynn (as Fletcher Christian) with his first movie role. That was followed only two years later by the first American try with Charles Laughton in a tour-de-force performance as a sadistic Captain Bligh. Nearly thirty years passed before another movie attempted the story. The 1962 production remains controversial, as does Marlon Brando's affected turn as Christian. These earlier movies were based on the books by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall that portrayed the Bounty's commander, William Bligh, as a brutal disciplinarian and the second in command, Fletcher Christian, as a hero. The actual story is not so black and white. In Captain Bligh and Mister Christian: The Men and the Mutiny (1972), Richard Hough presented a more balanced account of the famous mutiny that is meticulously researched and shows keen psychological insight into the characters of the men involved. It is on Hough's book that The Bounty is based.

The Bounty has a lot going for it. It is based on Hough's book, perhaps the best account of the mutiny. The screenplay was written by Robert Bolt, who also wrote such classics as Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, A Man for All Seasons, and Ryan's Daughter. His work shows in the complex, fully realized characters that are the center of this story. And those characters are brought to life by an amazingly strong cast - Anthony Hopkins (an Oscar for Silence of the Lambs) as William Bligh, Mel Gibson (an Oscar for directing Braveheart) as Fletcher Christian, Daniel Day-Lewis (an Oscar for My Left Foot) as John Fryer, and Liam Neeson (nominated for an Oscar for Schindler's List) as Churchill. Of course, none of these actors were famous yet when they performed in The Bounty. Two film giants, Laurence Olivier and James Fox, make cameo appearances as Admiral Hood and Captain Greenham, respectively, members of the Court Martial that tries Bligh on his return to Britain. The rest of the cast is not so well known, but they are all excellent.

Anthony Hopkins' Bligh is definitely not a villain, but he is at best a flawed hero. Hopkins, as he always does, makes the character of Bligh completely believable. He is a superb seaman and a man of unquestioned courage. He is also a very capable leader in the right circumstances, but he has a quick temper and a tendency to shift responsibility from himself to others. And he is an ambitious man with no connections or influence in a society where those weigh as heavily as skill and competency. When the chance to make a name for himself seems to be drifting from his grasp, his frustration and anger is turned on those around him. Hopkins never seems to be acting. He becomes Bligh.

Mel Gibson was a bigger name actor than Hopkins even when this movie was made, but it is obvious that he is not quite in the same league. His is the weakest performance of the primary actors, but that's still not bad considering the caliber of this cast. He does a nice job of letting Fletcher Christian evolve from a rather shallow, genial fop into a tortured leader of a mutiny. He seems to work a little too hard at being the tormented soul during the mutiny but it's a good overall performance and does not detract from the story.

The Bounty does an especially fine job of showing the Tahitians as real people. The costumes and behavior feel completely authentic. Wi Kuki Kaa as King Tynah, although not on screen for very long, manages to create a fully realized and sympathetic character. Tevaite Vernette as Mauatua, Christian's Tahitian wife, is lovely but a bit bland at first. Once the mutineers have left Tahiti on the Bounty, she develops into a stronger character who backs Christian when the other mutineers turn against him.

Roger Donaldson's direction is deliberate. He builds the story slowly and purposefully, piling small scenes one atop another to build a foundation for the intense, emotion-laden scenes of the mutiny and its consequences. The pace may be too slow for modern viewers grown accustomed to the quick-cut editing of contemporary action/adventure movies, but the pay-off is worth the effort for those with some patience.

The Bounty is a beautiful movie. Wonderful cinematography by Arthur Ibbetson makes full use of the sea and tropical islands. There's nothing quite like the appeal of a full rigged ship under sail and we get plenty of the Bounty - brilliant, sun-drenched shots, towering waves and howling winds around the Horn, silhouettes of the ship against color saturated evening skies, and more.

Of the three movies I've seen based on the story of the mutiny on the Bounty, this is my favorite. It is more historically accurate in its presentation of the events, the characters, the ship, and the Tahitian people and culture. A brilliant screen play and fine performances from an exceptional cast are the core of the movie. It is well crafted and beautifully filmed. The pacing may be slow for some, but for anyone interested in this famous mutiny or sea stories, in general, it is highly recommended.

I finally got round to watching this film and I really enjoyed it. I brought two mirrors to bear in my mind as I watched. One was the film "Master and Commander", which is not a mutiny story but depicts the era and life on the oceans. The other is a masterpiece of investigative historical research. The book is "The Bounty: the true story of the mutiny on the Bounty" by Caroline Alexander. Examining this story from a wealth of rarely seen documents in Australia and New Zealand (if I recall) she was able to piece together many disjointed parts of the mutiny. Further she provided much background information about what became of Bligh and those involved in the mutiny. I cannot recommend her book enough for those who have a taste for this crazy story.

First of all the film is gorgeous to look at. The scenery fairly drips with colours. The bare chested natives are also nice eye-candy. The uniforms of commissioned officers just about pop out of the screen with such bright shades. I quite enjoyed the manner in which the trial that Bligh, like all commanders or captains who had lost their ship had to endure, was juxtaposed back and forth into the story. (Now that I think about it, this would be a good time to plug all of the Aubrey/Maturin novels of the beloved Patrick O'Brian. From him you will learn as much if not more about naval life than by reading Alexander's terrific book).

A few weaknesses in retrospect come to mind. Sir Joseph Banks was the man who put the entire breadfruit, Tahiti expedition in motion. That it was an adventure to find a way of growing food cheaply and efficiently to feed slaves on Jamaica makes the blood run hot. That they continued back to Tahiti once again to pursue the fruit was surely one of the lowest points in English history. I am surprised that Banks was not inserted more clearly as the initiator of this madness. I would normally say that Mel Gibson gives a strong performance in whatever role he inhabits, given that he is a very talented actor. Notwithstanding a loathing of him as a person outside of the movie industry, I didn't let my revulsion influence watching him act. I found his embodiment of Fletcher Christian a bit wobbly. I say this because instead of emoting something more clearly defined as turmoil when it was appropriate, too often, for my liking, he wore a blank look on his face. Compare this to the master actor, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who is famous for allowing the character he represents to be transparent and fully involved.

Over all I think that it is under rated and if trashed by critics of that time, unjustly so. I saw a comment here from someone who said "forget Master and Commander". Not so. It also is a superb film and adheres very closely to the several O'Brian novels from which the script is crafted. Finally, I am not really a big fan of Vangelis. I mean, the only film that I associate his soundtrack music to is the always entertaining "Blade Runner". I can't imagine that film without the music. Seen these many years later, the 1984 film of the Bounty does not couple well with the electronic sounds that Vangelis was known for. A minor quibble but I'm a musician and am fussy about soundtracks. By comparison there is not one single sound of music that is out of place in "Master and Commander". The Bounty is good movie making.

Viewed on Tubi.

Based on a true story, it recalls the events of how the crew of an English trade ship instigated a mutiny after experiencing a veritable paradise in Tahiti and the demands of their increasingly overbearing captain.

It's much more of a slow burn than I typically watch (different thematically as well), and much more of a character drama, but it was a nice change of pace & I enjoyed my time with it. However I have no idea how this landed a straight PG rating, even given the more lax attitude of the time, given that I don't think I've ever seen so many boobs in a film (though that's certainly not a bad thing).

Mel Gibson, Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Laurence Olivier, Liam Neeson, Bernard Hill....and the list goes on as you can see. Where are these people now? All making big hit movies. You can't help but love this movie. Every time I see it, I want to see it again. I know of no other movie that has had an impact like THAT on me before. Every actor in the movie was great. Also, notice that the mass of extras REALLY act like the real thing. That is rare, and hard to do. I was an extra in Sudden Death (Van Damme), and you can't help but look into the camera or do weird things. It's fun. Try an find some of the continuity errors in this movie. They're hard to find, VERY. I only found a few after seeing the movie 10-15 times. It's almost flawless. The scenery was breathtaking. I only regret not seeing the movie on the "big screen". I gave this movie 10+ points. There is nothing like it (obviously, my opinion). I thought it was one of Neeson's greatest roles, especially the beginning where "Quintal is in his seat". That scene was shot beautifully. Gibson's girlfriend is quite gorgeous. It's no wonder why he did what he did (now I'm getting to the movie again)... Enjoy!

I was a bit dismayed at the lack of mention of the original "Mutiny On The Bounty" with Clark Gable, Franchot Tone and the great Charles Laughton. Even with parts of the film dated and some of the sea-faring scenes leaving much to be desired because of the studio way of making films back in the 1930's - the original still crackles with spirit and power. Gable is terrific and Laughton also gives a great performance. The 1960's remake is a great big mess - Brando seems to be "fopping" it up - playing Christian as some dandy who just wants to bug Bligh. There were many horrible behind the scenes fights and much hatred between crew and cast and it shows. Now, THE BOUNTY has it's problems but it is still a well made film. In fact, I dare say that this is one of Anthony Hopkins GREATEST performances. He plays him as such a three-dimensional character that in many ways he completely overmatches Mel Gibson. You can see Gibson trying his hardest, trying to hang in there with the great Hopkins but in many scenes he is completely blown off the screen. And yes there is a strong supporting cast with Neeson and Day-Lewis in early film roles. This film is well worth seeing, just don't pass over the original!

'The Bounty' is a minor contribution to the famous Bounty mutiny lore. Obviously the real story caught the public's imagination from the start. Capt Bligh's own book about the affair has apparently never been out of print since 1795.

But this movie never catches fire, perhaps the only real thrill is when Bounty sails in the the Tahitian harbor and is greeted by semi-naked women clambering over the gunnels. The crew, who know what awaits them, thanks to tales of a previous voyage by Capt Cook, are still bug-eyed. Had they died and gone to heaven?

In the Britain of that 1792, if you were poor, you could be hanged for any of a hundred different crimes, including petty theft. Poverty and drunkeness were endemic. Sex could be had, but for sailors, only if you had the money to pay for it.

Compared to conditions back in England, this was indeed a paradise, for British sailors. (Actually, the Tahitians themselves believed in a wide variety of deities, many malevolent, and were often frightened by the thought of evil spells, witchcraft and the like). They weren't quite the vacant, carefree people we see on screen, and that was a snapshot in time. A hundred years later, their population would be reduced by 80% by the white man's diseases, it was a French colony, Christian missionaries has done their work, and it was like any other port-of-call in the Pacific.

To get back to the film itself: Anthony Hopkins is good as Bligh; he's a talented actor. Look for Daniel Day-Lewis in his first film role; but he has few lines. Mel Gibson seems to sleepwalk through his role. The scriptwriters gave him little to say, (his lines are 10 words or less) and his acting has no flair whatsoever. He's upstaged by every actor he has a scene with, including his Tahitian girlfriend. The Tahitian chief has more charisma than Gibson.

Hopkins as Bligh comes out of this as the star, a somewhat priggish English gentleman of that day. The film implies that Bligh has a crush on Christian (Gibson), as we see cuts between Bligh in his sweaty bunk on the Bounty and Gibson having a ball on Tahiti, and this begins a rift between the two men. If this were so, it would not be unknown for that period, as the long voyages of those days with no women on board were known for such things.

The real Bligh might not have been such a wonderful character. While Governor of Australia in the early 1800s, his subordinates put him under house-arrest for two years.

If you see this film, unless you are an out-and-out Navy freak, it is Hopkins' performance that shines. Otherwise the film is a pedestrian walk-thru of no particular account.

I will admit, I thought I'd seen it all when I first saw Charles Laughton bring the snivelling and maniacal Captain Bligh to life. I was dead wrong. Anthony Hopkins, whom I place on the highest rank of accomplished actors, recreates the memorable role with incredible flair and complexity. He shows us not just an insane seaman bent on ultimate subordination, but a man with real concern for maintaining order, knowing the consequences of anything less. "The Bounty", yet another retelling of the classic tale, is actually an amazing recreation of the sea fable, pumped with real emotion and drama. The writers really understand the characters in this story, especially in Bligh's case, but also in Fletcher Christian's as well. Mel Gibson reigns over the role this time, still fresh from his Australian beginnings, and undoubtedly one of the best at perfecting the challenged and affected hero. I proudly rave this version of the famous mutiny, and probably will place this among 1984's best films. Rating: Three stars and a half.

Some bonehead reviewer from TV Guide, who furnishes the film reviews for Comcast, calls "The Bounty" a "revisionist take on the original story". If the reviewer had more sources of research than Nordhoff and Hall's NOVEL, the horrible Brando version, and the really decent Clark Gable and Charles Laughton version, maybe they would realize the NOVEL and the movies are the revisionist takes. If one simply reads a biography of the main protagonists, or a scholarly book, the relationship that existed between cousins William Bligh and Fletcher Christian before Christian joined Bligh aboard Bounty becomes obvious. Actually, not even "The Bounty" shows the close friendship between Bligh and Christian. Christian abandoned his friend in a small boat, so he could sail off to a less brutal life than the Royal Navy, and Bligh completed one of the great small boat voyages in history, sailing an overloaded small boat by dead reckoning 1400 miles to a safe landing in the Dutch East Indies. The acting is excellent, the script spotty, the scenery to die for, and all in all, "The Bounty" is well worth a watch.

The most famous and important quote from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" is a great example of how some things must be made to be more interesting when something it's not, or to make more appealing to a larger audience. "The Bounty" is considered the most accurate film about the events surrounding the rebellion on the Bounty, which was presented in two other classics: "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935 and 1962). While the original Academy Award Winner film of 1935 is a story about how tyrannical some men can be, and the first hour of the film of the film is pretty much Captain Bligh punishing his subordinates, the 1984 version is more light in this aspect and twists the story in a very different way.

"The Bounty" is told in flashbacks from the point of view of Bligh (Anthony Hopkins) telling how things were in the ship and how the mutiny situation took place. Hopkins portrays Bligh as a friendlier commander who becomes more and more tyrannical after the Bounty gets to Tahiti and then his great friend Fletcher Christian (Mel Gibson) forms a group of rebel that takes over the boat. I get used to the whole situation presented in Frank Lloyd's film with Charles Laughton playing a mean figure who most of the time was a brutal and eminent person, treating bad everyone for every single thing that Hopkins way of portraying Bligh was more interesting and from him you realize that this version has its own way to present things and from this point you can enjoy the film or don't care about it.

I couldn't help but compare these two films and despite being a more accurate view of the real story I must say that the classic film was more appealing than this one, the adventure moments were fantastic, and the quality of the performances were impeccable while here only Anthony Hopkins display a great performance, the other members of the cast are good (Mel Gibson, Bernard Hill, Edward Fox), some of them are better in other projects (Daniel Day-Lewis, Laurence Olivier, Liam Neeson).

Why you should see this movie? The brilliant cinematography is astonishing in every possible way and I can't believe it wasn't nominated for an Oscar that year; if you haven't watched the original version you'll enjoy more than I did because for a film made in the 1980's is very well made, the story is interesting even though there's some weak moments. But if you watched the 1935 movie you're gonna keep comparing both films but depending on your views this can be a better film or don't.

The realism worked at times (when the female Indians appear nude in front of the Englishmen on the boat) but placing the whole story as the way it happened wasn't so much interesting because it annoys a little, carries the movie into a dark but slow way, and it misses a little bit of adventure. Another aspect that is out of hand here is the musical score of Vangelis, something that didn't match the film, in some parts when it was needed music there wasn't any, and in other parts that synthesizer music didn't help at all. He's a good composer but not in this film.

Roger Donaldson made a good film, very nice to see, but it's very difficult to say if "The Bounty" is going to be a memorable film. 7/10

The Bounty is in my opinion perhaps the best, most realistic and most historically accurate film of the 3 films made about this historical event, The Bounty Mutiny. It offers the most three-dimensional and a far more human portrayal of Captain Bligh than its' predecessors. And Anthony Hopkins, as always, shines in this part. Mel Gibson is the romantic lead and as such does very well. Daniel Day-Lewis makes one of his more villainish appearances as the arrogant and rather unlikable Mr. Fryer. And Liam Neeson is also featured in one of his early parts, playing the brutal but charismatic and likable Churchill.

It is a strong picture, the one that delves deepest in the psyches of the two main protagonists of this real-life drama. Bligh is portrayed as overly ambitious, strict and harsh, but honorable and a strong personality, while Fletcher is portrayed as sympathetic, honest and emotional, Bligh's polar opposite, who also cares less for honor and loyalty and more for his feelings. This makes him turn emotionally and psychologically unstable in a very climactic and well shot mutiny scene.

Many will side with Fletcher Christian as always, but also many more are likely to be torn between the two sides or at least have sympathy for Bligh, unlike with the previous movies, because here he exhibits much more human traits. He even reaches out to Christian in one scene and tries to help get his mind on the right track and off his infatuation, the one that will eventually help trigger the mutiny. In both other Bounty films, he's a pure sadist who won't stop at any lengths to enforce his iron will and discipline. Here he starts showing these traits only after Christian rejects his friendly advice. So in a way, this film to an extent blames Christian for not being patient and reasonable enough to preserve the peace with his commander and help maintain the stability on the ship.

So it's both a beautiful and a realistic film. Beautiful because of the landscape shots and not least the half-nude aboriginal girls and realistic because there are no typical villains or heroes in it, just people brought in a difficult situation. Kudos to Roger Donaldson for bringing more realism into this, one of the most famous and celebrated love stories in history.

Love the filmography and costumes. Very authentic looking. Of course Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins along with Liam Neeson pull off a great film. Though slow going at times

Underrated, understated gem of a movie.

Great telling of the Mutiny on the Bounty. Shows well the events leading up to the mutiny, and what happened afterwards. My most accounts, a quite accurate depiction of the historical event - Lt Bligh's own log was used in writing the screenplay - and the most accurate film made on the subject.

Despite it essentially being a docu-drama, not dry or dull at all. The director keeps the pace moving well. Thanks to good setup prior to the mutiny, everything makes sense when it does occur. Furthermore, the depictions of Bligh and Fletcher Christian seem quite balanced.

Great performances in the lead roles by Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins. Good support from a cast which includes Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson in their early careers. Also good to see the great Laurence Olivier as Admiral Hood.

Sir Philip Anthony Hopkins was 47 years young at the time of this film, which was reflected in his firm demeanor and steps. We also see a still young Mel Gibson here as a young actor, he was 28 years old at the time. Both carry the film with verve and that is also noticeable in the film, it runs smoothly and the viewer will not be bored for a moment. Hopkins plays the English captain William Bligh who becomes increasingly strict during a trip to Tahiti, where they will fetch bread trees with their roots and all to transport them to Jamaica. There it could function as cheap food for the slaves present there. Captain Bligh does not come across as a likeable man to the viewer, he is quite punctual and everything has to be done by the "book" which does not look good to his crew. Finally, after a few collisions, his right-hand man, First Lieutenant Fletcher Christian, revolts. With the help of mutiny, Christian eventually gains control of the ship. Bligh is put on a lifeboat with the eighteen men who have remained loyal to him.

Despite the age of the film, we had never seen it and were therefore pleasantly surprised by the story and the filming of it: a 7.5!