Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Best movie ever!

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

For many years, I measured ALL movies by "The Bounty Test." The question is asked regarding a newly released movie--does it contain any elements of The Bounty? If it does, then I'll look forward to seeing the movie. If not, I'm much less inclined to want to see it. For example. If any members of this stellar cast are in the movie under consideration, I'll consider making a trip to see it in a theater. No Bounty veterans in this film? Meh. Or if the movie is about men on a ship (space ship, submarine, whatever) I might see the movie on the big screen. No? I'd go under protest. Music by Vangelis? It passes The Bounty Test. Directed by Roger Donaldson? Yes, it passes. Filmed in Tahiti? I'll see it.This test is not fool proof. There are films that pass The Bounty Test that are not very good. But the fact that I used this film as a benchmark should indicate that this is no ordinary movie. It's a one of the last great period pieces. It tells an important story about what happens to young men from uptight cultures who suddenly find themselves plunging into non-uptight, um, "cultures." Mutinies may occur...I give this movie ten stars and a full recommendation, but only if you're a guy like me. My Bounty Test was, and is, highly subjective. Also, it doesn't always work. But for me, this film is a true classic. None better. Brilliant in ways that didn't happen due to planning, I don't think. It just came together perfectly. What more can I say?

This version of "The Bounty" story was one of David Lean's unrealized projects. The screenplay was by Lean's longtime collaborator Robert Bolt and it finally reached the screen under the direction of Roger Donaldson who actually does a very good job. This takes a different slant on the usual take on the mutiny making Bligh, (an excellent Anthony Hopkins), if not exactly the hero, considerably less of a villain than he is usually painted while Christian, (Mel Gibson), is weak and dissolute with his own, selfish motives for rebelling. There is also a much greater emphasis on the events after the mutiny than in previous pictures.It may lack the physical excitement of the Frank Lloyd version but it's definitely an improvement on the elephantine Brando/Howard remake. The large cast includes early performances from Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson as well as Edward Fox and Laurence Olivier as officers presiding at Bligh's court-martial and there's a terrific performance from the New Zealand actor Wi Kuki Kaa as King Tynah. Like all good yarns this has stood the test of time remarkably well.

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.

The 1935 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" was simply one of the best films of the decade. Despite being in black & white, it is still a very powerful and compelling picture today. The 1962 version, while not quite as good, was made with amazing production values and is a gorgeous looking film. Both are worth seeing. So why, then, did they remake the film again in 1984?! In fact, the public must have thought the exact same thing, as they stayed away from "The Bounty" and it lost a fortune. The production cost $25,000,000 and only earned a bit more than $8,000,000 in its biggest market, the US. Aside from the 'been there/done that' aspect of the film, is there any other reason for the film being such a flop? Well, perhaps Mel Gibson's bizarre performance was also a contributing factor. In this remake, his Fletcher Christian seemed, at times, just plain nuts--especially when the mutiny occurs. Regardless, I found this to be one of the most unnecessary films ever made. Not terrible, just completely unneeded. My advice is to see the first and, perhaps, second version and pass on this one despite a nice performance by Anthony Hopkins as Bligh.