Rating: 
Summary: BEST PICTURE OSCAR FOR 1935
Review: Gable is impressively right as Fletcher Christian (although his speech sounds more Ohio than English!) Laughton gives an unforgettable performance as the sadistic weakling you love to hate, Captain Bligh, while Franchot Tone is amusing in his role as Roger. The cost of the production (which took nearly 2 years to make) was a whopping (for 1935) 2 million dollars and there were 2500 extras employed for the Polynesian scenes. Gable's and Movita's scenes together have a special quality and this adaptation of the Nordoff-Hall classic (which contains aspects of truth) is storytelling at its best.
Rating: 
Summary: Against the tide I go
Review: I am one of the few that thoroughly enjoyed the 1962 version (Marlon Brando) much more. I thought that Gable's performance was good but unrealistic at times. The point he decides to start the mutiny seems out of the blue. It also would have helped if he had a british accent. I also didn't find Captain Blye to be as 'real' either. He was more of a characature.I was let down all around. If you have not seen the 1962 version then you may enjoy this one more than I did.
Rating: 
Summary: Mutiny on the Bounty 1962 version better
Review: I wish they would release it in DVD, I saw the 3 versions.
I prefer the 1962 version it's a lot better, can't wet
to buy it (The DVD 1962) rate 4 1/2 stars. michel lebrun
sherbrooke, qué.
Rating:
Summary: A FAIR POTRAYL OF A NOTRIOUS MUTINY
Review: I would've liked to recommend this movie but I can not although CHARLES LAUGHTON and CLARK GABLE do outstanding jobs in thier roles. I found myself saying this why GLYNN CHIRISTIAN has never liked the way they potray the story about the mutiny and his ancestor. I felt that times this story went off the track of what it was trying to say, about what happend on that fateful voyage and why things turned out the way they did. This movie is'nt great by a historian's standpoint. Oh well if you like sea adventures you'll like this story but my advice is enjoy it and don't pay attention to the above or you'll be dissappointed like I was.
Rating:
Summary: Get over it!
Review: If you want history, go read a book. For Pete's sake, this is a movie, made for entertainment. And entertain it does. Laughton steals the show, but everybody else comes across just fine. All other movies made of this story are good, too, but this one is king of this particular hill. A fun watch by every measure.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, but not historically accurate
Review: OK, while miles ahead of the 1960s remake, ruined by an over-the-top performance by a very miscast Marlon Brando, this version still does not tell the true story of the HMS Bounty and its ill-fated voyage. (See James A. Michener's "Rascals in Paradise" for a historically accurate, but brief, picture of Bligh and the mutiny.) The movie stays close to the novel by Hall & Nordhoff and uses a fictious midshipman, Roger Byam, as the main character and we see both Christian and Bligh mostly through his eyes. The acting by Gable and Laughton are, of course, excellent and the film shows the money spent by M-G-M wasn't wasted. The Bounty, itself, was a beautiful replica and the filming at sea--especially during storms--is hair-raising. In short, if you are after historically accurate drama--then this isn't your film, but if you want an entertaining, thrilling sea adventure from Hollywood's golden age--then by all means take a chance with this great picture.
Rating:
Summary: Good Quality DVD of classic adventure!
Review: Okay, so there are some corny MGM movie moments here and there, but on the whole this is a timeless adventure classic with standout performances by Laughton, Gable and Tone. Truly thrilling and gut wrenching, deserving of a place in your collection. A few additional bonus features compliment this Best Picture Oscar winner.
Rating:
Summary: Good Quality DVD of classic adventure!
Review: Okay, so there are some corny MGM movie moments here and there, but on the whole this is a timeless adventure classic with standout performances by Laughton, Gable and Tone. Truly thrilling and gut wrenching, deserving of a place in your collection. A few additional bonus features compliment this Best Picture Oscar winner.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive version
Review: Skip the 1962-version with Brando or the 1984-effort with Mel Gibson... THIS is the 1. The production values are very high(of course - it`s from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) and the star performances still survives... With MGM`s "San Francisco", the best b&w melodrama of the 30s... No wonder they called Clark Gable "The King of Hollywood" - here the monarch is at his youthful and masculine BEST:-)
Rating:
Summary: Early Best Picture Winner Disappoints Somewhat
Review: The 1935 Academy Award for Best Picture. The AFI list of best 100 films of the century (the 20th, that is). With this pedigree, I expected great things from "Mutiny on the Bounty." But this film for me, while never less than entertaining, fell far short of greatness. It's a solid action film with a script more literate than your average action movie to be sure, but I was still left somewhat cold by it. Much of the adoration of this film seems to spring from a love of the central performances, namely those of Charles Laughton and Clark Gable. Both of course are good, but Laughton's character suffers from a silent movie villain's one-noteness. He does sadistic well, but that's about all he's required to do. Clark Gable impressed me more, and made me think that maybe he's a better actor than I ever gave him credit for. But for me, the standout performer (and the one I hear the least about) is Franchot Tone, playing a young idealist, enamored with the romance of life at sea and not prepared for the petty brutalities and politics. Tone is forced to give the most nuanced performance, as he straddles the line between loyalty to upper command and humanity for his fellow shipmates. In contrast to Laughton and Gable's showy roles, Tone's is quiet and thoughtful, except for a last-minute soliloquy that he handles well. The production is never less than impressive, especially for 1935. The special effects are solid, as is the attention paid to period detail. But for some reason, despite the good things I have to say about the film, I just never got that into it. It's like any number of solidly crafted films released today: competent, fairly intelligent and well done, but not especially artistic or unique. One gets the feeling that it achieves what it sets out to do; one just wished it had set out to do a little more than it does. Grade: B
| 
