Well, on paper it seemed like a mutiny was all but a given, wasn't it? Stick a group of dishevelled, starved, barely experienced sailors on a boat for months on end with no female contact and then introduce them to basically paradise, and they are not going to want to leave any- time soon. The first error of The Bounty is that it goes to little lengths to actually visualise this agonising duration on a dirty boat. It doesn't feel like they have been shackled to one area for a long period of time. Everything is forwarded to us via characterisation - every beating, lashing, gagging. We spend little time on that dinghy that Bligh and his loyalists are cast off on, and what is supposed to be a courageous and harrowing journey back to civilisation happens in a few blinks of the eye, a few dissolves to show time. It's also been praised for a more moderate representation of Bligh, not as a monster, but as a measured, intelligent captain that was overcome by unfortunate situations. I do not see it. Hopkins is a fine actor, but his Bligh is seemingly written as a complete and utter dictator of HMS Bounty, punishing every small indiscretion severely, refusing to acknowledge his men's perspectives, full of blustering pride for himself and disdain for even his commanding officers, and finally completely blinded by any adverse effects his decisions may result in. A final confrontation before the mutiny itself between Hopkins and Gibson is riveting; Fletcher offers him a final out, a chance to renounce his totalitarian rule, and Bligh responds with seething disapproval, Hopkins shivering with sweat and a delirious rage. Well it would be riveting, but this is not an explosion of anger for Bligh's character, merely the predictable end for such a despicably written captain. It would be much more affecting had the movie not already set its sights on that sudden redemption once he has been cast off the Bounty, and naming him a hero at the movie's end. Vangelis has done many an iconic score, but this must count as one of his most overbearing. It doesn't wait for an appropriate moment to chime in, but merely powers its way through ever scene with a feigned dramatic importance. In the early sequences where the sunlight blasts, the wind rips through the sails and the promise of the sea is a fresh adventure the score is dreamy and inviting, using these harp glissandos to earmark the moments of bliss like dropping anchor for the first time in weeks. And then it turns foreboding and unrelenting; a relatively unsubtle bit of symbolism is the heavily percussive track which plays as Fletcher first chases and kisses his native bride-to-be, and the banging of the drum is almost like a loud, ominous cannonball shot. And then it will match each furious glare from Hopkins at his crew's insubordination - piercing as he looks upon the couple becoming more intimate, pulsing with anger as the deserters are lashed, high- pitched as he repeatedly orders the ship to be cleaned spotless. It does no favours for Bligh's characterisation - after a while you feel like mutiny yourself, because the soundtrack has made it like Hopkins is right next to us, bellowing into our ears himself. It also makes the silly mistake of using a flashback structure so that the entire series of events are narrated from a future court adjudicating on Bligh's actions. A better movie could make this work, but here it just serves to telegraph every little detail of the plot and remove all tension created. We know that Bligh and his loyalist ultimately make it back, so it becomes less a case study for him and more one of Gibson and the dilemma he faces with his mutiny. When Hopkins' weary voice-over chimes in and thinks back on how he thought it was just youthful passion that made his master's mate abandon his duties, it not only immediately signals what is to come, but it significantly weakens his own insight as well. Add to that the paradoxically suffocating soundtrack that drowns out any actual acting and it becomes near insufferable.

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.

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.

The 1935 black & White version of "Mutiny on the bounty" may have won an Oscar for Best Picture at the time, but will likely strike modern viewers as dated and unrealistic. Marlon Brando's 1962 remake is the most epic, captivating and compelling version even though it failed at the box office when released; indeed the '62 version is a masterpiece (see my review). But Mel Gibson's 1984 version, simply called "The Bounty," is the most historically accurate and realistic film version of the infamous mutiny.THE PLOT (***SPOILER***): The Bounty mutiny story is so fascinating because it's TRUE. William Bligh, as acting captain, was sent on a mission in December 1787 to bring breadfruit plants from Tahiti back to England. Bligh intended on circumnavigating the globe in fulfilling the mission. Unfortunately he and his crew failed to get around Cape Horn, South America, and had to go the long way around Africa. It thus took them 10 months to reach Tahiti, wherein they were forced to stay another 5 months due to the breadfruit's "dormant" period. The natives were friendly and the women beautiful. It comes as no surprise that the crew naturally fell under the spell of the Polynesian paradise; Fletcher Christian even married the King's daughter, Maimiti. But after 5 months they had to get on with their mission and return to Naval discipline and England. Three and a half weeks later on April 28, 1789, Fletcher took over the ship with 18 other mutineers. 22 remained loyal to Bligh and 2 others were neutral. Christian set Bligh and 18 loyalists adrift in the ship's launch boat and then sailed back to Tahiti where he dropped off 16 men but picked up 6 Tahitian men and 11 native women, including Maimiti. Fletcher then set forth with 8 other mutineers and the Tahitians to elude the Royal Navy, ultimately settling on Pitcairn Island, which was well off the beaten path and misplaced on Royal charts, seemingly a perfect hiding place to live out the rest of their days (***END SPOILER***.WHAT WORKS: As already stated "The Bounty" is the most historically accurate version. It also has the most realistic vibe, which isn't to say that the '62 version isn't believable, it's just that this '84 version strikes the viewer as completely REAL. It's almost as if the film takes you back in time to view the actual events.This version also gives the most balanced and positive portrayal of the infamous Captain Bligh, played by Anthony Hopkins to great effect. Indeed the film stresses that he was exonerated in the matter. But it also hints of his character flaws that ultimately provoked the mutiny. In real life Bligh had a bad temper and was abusive & insulting to his subordinates. The other two versions show an event that really happened on the Bounty: two big cheeses came up missing on the ship and Bligh unjustly blamed and punished members of his crew even though it was he himself that stoled them!Perhaps Bligh's biggest flaw was that he lacked the ability to inspire loyalty in others; by all accounts he was a real bastage to be around when he was in authority. Lending credence to this is the fact that, even though he was exonerated in the Bounty case, he provoked ANOTHER mutiny years later in New South Wales, Australia!Despite all this Bligh was certainly a brilliant seaman and navigator. The film shows this with Bligh and the 18 loyalists on the adrift launch. After failing to settle on near islands due to unfriendly natives, Bligh navigates the small craft over 3600 miles to Timor in 47 days on very few provisions. He didn't have any charts or compass. All he had was a sextant and a pocket watch. Although all of the loyalists survived this incredible journey 5 later died due to ailments sustained in the voyage. The '62 version barely addresses this miraculous event but "The Bounty" devotes quite a few scenes to it.The score by Vangelis is very fitting. The best part of this composition is heard during the end credits. The film shows Fletcher, the mutineers and the Tahitians stranded on Pitcairn as they sadly observe The Bounty go down in flames. They know they can never go home again. Vangelis' unique piece then plays out over the credits. It perfectly captures the mood and setting. It's so magnificent sometimes I just play the end credits sequence. It's definitely one of the most emotionally potent endings in motion picture history.WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Although Gibson is more realistic as Fletcher Christian than Marlon Brando, especially since Gibson was closer to Christian's real age of 23-25 (Brando was 36-37 during filming), Mel simply lacks Brando's captivating charisma.The Tahitian scenes seem to lack pizazz; the film almost crawls to a halt (which is the the exact opposite of Brando's version). It doesn't personally bother me because the film is attempting to show us what leads to the mutineers' decision to take the ship, but some viewers may have a problem with it, in particular those with ADD."The Bounty" also fails to give any glimpse of what life would offer the mutineers & Tahitians on Pitcairn Island. The '62 version, on the other hand, devotes a number of scenes to this part of the story. This is not a negative to me, however, since showing subsequent scenes on Pitcairn would ruin the powerful end sequence noted above.FINAL ANALYSIS: "The Bounty" is the most historically accurate and realistic version of the infamous mutiny even though Brando's version is the most epic, engaging and compelling. I recommend seeing both versions back to back, which is what I usually do. Both versions are amongst my favorite films of all time. In fact, I consider them masterpieces.The film runs 2 hours and 12 minutes; Brando's version is 3 hours.GRADE: A