Absolutely the worst movie.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

While "Mutiny on the Bounty" certainly is a classic movie, it does have some flaws.Sure, the movie was entertaining, but it just was way too long and the storyline suffered from this. It just felt like they should have been more thorough in the cutting room and trimming it down in size. Such as the intro and intermission segments, it was just several minutes of music. That was unnecessary and just annoying to be honest.The movie was quite nicely filmed and it felt like you were there on the Bounty herself. So that really added a nice touch of realism to the movie. It was so easy to get into the movie and the atmosphere.As for the acting, well there was nothing to complain about here. They had an allround good cast that delivered great performances with their individual roles and characters."Mutiny on the Bounty" is a good high-seas adventure. However, it is hardly the movie that you can watch again and again, at least not without several years passing in between each viewing. I think I watched this as a pre-teen and then watched it again some 30 years later.

MGM dusted off the same property that brought it the best picture Oscar in 1935 and gave it the 1960s epic roadshow treatment. The result is a lumbering film that, for all its seafaring adventure, has not an ounce of narrative momentum to keep it moving forward.Trevor Howard seems to enjoy his role as Captain Bligh, the sadistic commander whose mistreatment of his crew drives them to mutiny. Marlon Brando plays Fletcher Christian, leader of the revolt, as a swishy dandy. All of the actors are overwhelmed by the film's physical size; this was the decade of film spectacle, and "Mutiny on the Bounty" works overtime to give its audience that. Unfortunately, director Lewis Milestone can't figure out what to do with it all, so he decides to cram every ridiculously widescreen shot with a lot of stuff without ever managing to create any visual interest. A saggy middle section set on Tahiti goes on forever and grinds the film to a halt. It never manages to get started again, and by the time the mutiny itself actually happens somewhere around the 2:30 mark, I was hoping I could be left behind with Captain Bligh so that I wouldn't have to endure another 30 minutes of finding out what happened to the Bounty, which I had long ago stopped caring about."Mutiny on the Bounty" received seven Oscar nominations in 1962, but lost all of them, five to "Lawrence of Arabia." Its nominations included Best Picture, Best Color Art Direction, Best Color Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Original Song (only heard during the entr'acte), and Best Special Effects, for some meager sea storm scenes and another toward the end when the Bounty goes up in flames.Grade: C

There are times when I wonder why Hollywood bothers to do remakes of classic movies. That thought did occur to me as I prepared to watch this 1962 remake of the 1935 classic. Although it wasn't without its problems, I fell in love with the '35 version when I first saw it as a teenager, and I confess that I had my doubts about taking in any of the remakes of the story. Both films suffer from the real curse of any movie based on true events - they take way too many liberties with history. Bligh's court-martial, as far as I know, didn't admonish him after acquitting him (in fact, he eventually rose to the rank of Admiral.) Christian's desire to return to England and his death after the burning of the Bounty are pure fantasy. One wonders why they were included in this movie, since they didn't add anything particularly noteworthy to the story. But historical inaccuracies are to be expected in any historical epic, so one shouldn't become too consumed by them. The basics are here - the voyage of the Bounty to Tahiti to collect breadfruit, the mutiny led by Christian and the escape of the mutineers to Pitcairn Island.Visually, this movie is stunning, which is probably due at least in part to the fact that unlike the '35 version it's obviously filmed in colour, which gives an entirely different feel to the scenes shot in Tahiti especially. There's also the fact that the studio went to the trouble and expense of essentially recreating the Bounty - building an actual replica ship, which also gave a more realistic feel to this production. (The replica sank during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.) Technically, as would be expected, the special effects are better in this movie. My reactions to the cast are interesting. I thought that this film offered a much more nuanced view of Bligh and Christian than the '35 movie. Here, Bligh comes across as less pompous and sadistic - although certainly a strict and perhaps extreme disciplinarian, and Christian seems more fleshed out - less noble, perhaps, more reluctant to act against Bligh and much more beset by doubts. Trevor Howard's performance as Bligh was good, although I have to confess that he does not replace Charles Laughton in my mind as Captain Bligh - Laughton's will still be the face I associate with the man, and Howard was a few years too old to play the part. Bligh was 33 when he took command of the Bounty; Howard was almost 50 when this was made. I liked Brando as Christian. I know that a lot of people didn't, and his performance was perceived as one reason (perhaps the main reason) that the movie wasn't well received. But I liked him - although Brando was also much older than Fletcher Christian. I actually thought he was better than Clark Gable in 1935. Gable, to me, never really captured the part of a British naval officer, and in some ways never seemed to try very much. Brando, on the other hand, did seem to try to get into the mind of the character and I thought he worked well. That puts me in the minority, but I thought his performance was fine. The supporting cast (the most notable being Richard Harris as Seaman Mills) held their own, but as with any adaptation of the story, those who play Bligh and Christian will make or break it.I appreciated the attempt to inject a little more humour into the story than the earlier version. A lot of that humour revolved around the Bounty's time in Tahiti and what the British perceived as the relatively "loose" moral standards of the Tahitian women. The scene between Howard and Brando where Bligh is trying to order Christian to return to Tahiti to make love to the Tahitian king's daughter (because the Tahitians were insulted that Bligh ordered an end to their encounter when he found them on the island, perceiving that as an insulting suggestion that Englishmen were too good for Tahitian women) - with Christian feigning ignorance of what he meant, forcing Bligh to finally give him a direct order to do the deed, so to speak - had me smiling.This movie was too long. The runtime of almost 3 hours could have easily been shaved by probably close to a third without much being lost. It was a very expensive movie by the standards of early 1962, and in fact, given its production costs and relatively low box office receipts, it's probably fair to consider this a flop. Judging this movie on its merits, though, I'd say that would be inaccurate. I'd personally say that it's not as good as the 1935 version of the story - but it's pretty close. I think it was a pretty good remake - perhaps one of the better remakes of classic films that I've seen - and it probably deserved to be regarded more highly by the critics of its day - although it's rating of 7.2 here (as of writing) suggests that this film has been better received by successor generations than by its own generation. (8/10)

How this pathetic debacle has managed to scrape such a high score Is beyond all comprehension. Was Marlon Brando REALLY an Oscar winner? The pathetic, fat half-wit can't even manage a half-decent English accent! His must rank as the all-time useless attempt at pretending to be English.It's not just Inaccurate - It's weird,totally strange. If you want to enjoy an historically accurate version of these events then watch the 1935 'Mutiny on the Bounty' - with the masterful Charles Laughton; and at least Clarke Gable can manage a convincing English accent. This movie Is a pointless and pathetic disgrace. Americans are absolutely useless at historical reproduction - apart from 'Cowboys and Indians' -perhaps because they've got no history!