SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

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

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

slightlymad22 Continuing my plan to watch every movie in Mel Gibson's filmography in order, I come to The Bounty (1984)Plot In A Paragraph: A more accurate re telling of the famous mutiny on the bounty featuring Fletcher Christian (Gibson) and Captain William Bligh (Anthony Hopkins)Gibson is OK here, if a little bland at times. We don't really get a lot from him here. He doesn't have that much dialogue either, I wonder if it was a conscious decision to have him hardly speak like in Road Warrior (his most successful movie at that point) and have him so quiet. He is OK, but I couldn't help but notice how little dialogue he had. In a great performance, Hopkins plays Bligh as more complicated man rather than an outright cruel villain. And whilst being closer to the truth makes the movie better for me, it does however make the mutineers seem like spoiled school kids fed up with a strict teacher. As for the rest of the cast Laurence Olivier hams it up and it's interesting to note Daniel Day Lewis and Liam Neeson pop up in early roles too. It's well directed, well acted and has some impressive set pieces. My blu ray looks great with a good transfer. There is a surprising amount of nudity for a pg movie too.Highly recommended. The Bounty only grossed $8 million at the domestic Box Office to end 1984 as the 86th highest grossing movies of the year.

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.

Armand example of measure. in acting, story, characters portraits. a remarkable cast. and inspired music. a film who can be disappointed for the hunters of historical truth details. but a good gift for admirers of Anthony Hopkins or Laurence Olivier. a film who has as axis the music of Vangelis and examples of admirable performances- except, maybe, Mel Gibson who prefers create a role without root - but the work of Wi Kuki Kaa is a nice compensation, wise in solutions for atmosphere and for the tension, with a little brutal end, it is more than a good film. the source of this status - the balance between courage and science.and the flavor of pure chronicle of an exceptional case.

fred-houpt 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.