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 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