Home
Movies
TV Series
Animation
Upcoming
Explore
- Download App
- Video Downloader
Blogs

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

Download App slide

123movies search icon

muted

Mutiny on the Bounty

7.6

/10

26409 people rated

1936•2 h 12 m•United States

First mate Fletcher Christian leads a revolt against his sadistic commander, Captain Bligh, in this classic seafaring adventure, based on the real-life 1789 mutiny.

Adventure

Biography

Drama

Cast (18)

Charles Laughton

Fletcher Christian

Henry Stephenson

Sir Joseph Banks

Spring Byington

John Harrington

You May Also Like

User Reviews

Tshedy__m

27/06/2023 16:00

Despite my issues with Hollywood, Mutiny on the Bounty is my favourite film. I first saw the slightly poor version with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard and wasn't very impressed. I then bought this on DVD and loved it. The story (based on a true historical incident) is about the tyrannical Capt William Bligh bullying and abusing his crew until he drives them to mutiny, lead by Lt Fletcher Christian. While this version is not historically accurate and has some un-impressive casting, it is very well filmed and has a very good script. The film stared Clark Gable as Fletcher Christian and he is my biggest issue with the film, he was not acting, he was just being Clark Gable. No attempt at an English accent, no real emotions showed, just reading his lines. The only reason he wasn't panned for this film was because the character of Fletcher Christian fitted his on-screen persona. He weakest in this film, there were so many other better actors in Hollywood at the time that would have been better for the role, Ronald Colman could have played him and the one I would have loved to see play him would have been Laurence Olivier . The other star was Franchot Tone as the idealistic Midshipman Roger Byam, again, no attempt at an English accent but he was acting a bit more than Clark Gable and he JUST about fitted the role OK. But the only person who owns the film is the legendary British actor Charles Laughton as the sadistic bullying Capt Bligh. He was absolutely fantastic and acted everyone off the screen, if it wasn't for him, I doubt I would enjoy this film. Other supporting roles are a bit better than the leading American stars. Donald Crisp as Thomas Burkitt, Eddie Quillan as Thomas Ellison, Dudley Digges as the surgeon Dr Bacchus (adding the right amount of humour to the film), Henry Stephenson as Sir Joseph Banks, Ian Wolfe as the slimy Mr Maggs and Bill Bambridge as Hitihiti. This film is grandly filmed with perfect sets and costumes for the period and the special effects for 1935 are VERY VERY good. It is one of the ultimate high sea adventure stories and I highly recommend it for classical film buffs. Derek

mauvais_garblack

27/06/2023 16:00

Probably the greatest "adventure" movie ever made! The casting was perfect. I just bought it to add to my collection, mostly to see if they got it wrong. They did, but having been to Tahiti at least they did right by Polynesia....even the words were Tahitian!! Hard to imagine that in a 1935 film. What was wrong was the reasons for the mutiny and the portrayal of William Bligh. I have nothing but praise for every role Laughton has done. SUPERB!!! But the real Bligh was the exact opposite. Too gentle, I think and didn't see this all coming. Put yourself in the crew. Almost a year at sea, eating rotten salt pork, then months in a tropical paradise with sexy girls....would you look forward to that return voyage???

Cocolicious K

27/06/2023 16:00

I have always been a big fan of the story of the Mutiny on the Bounty, and I've tried to read nearly every account and version of the story that I can find. When I watch a "Bounty" movie, however, I toss aside my own perspectives on which version of the story is correct, and instead settle in for what I hope is a wonderful, period piece, set on an 18th century vessel. This type of movie, if it succeeds, draws us into that world gone by for an hour or two, we come back at the end, refreshed, with a little salt on our face, and maybe a minor case of scurvy. This version is my least favorite, and not because it isn't a pleasure to watch. The problem for a Bounty aficionado, is, that the next version includes Marlon Brando, Trevor Howard and Richard Harris (need I say more), and the last version of our time (so far), goes big, big budget, with gorgeous sets, Mel Gibson, Sir Anthony Hopkins and Sir Laurence Olivier (cameo). Since this was the first, I will stay away from comparisons and stick to its strengths and weaknesses. By far, this earlier version is far more realistic in the crass, bitter nature of Captain Bligh. We learn, right from the start, that he is a tough, near ruthless, man driven to advancement, at the cost of his men's comfort, or possibly lives. The dashing Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) is at times no match for the senior, hard nosed Bligh. Repeated, to a large extent in the next big screen version, the dynamic between Christian, a rich playboy, at sea mostly because his parents want to "put some hair on his chest" versus the working man made good, through hard laborious study and drudgery, Captain Bligh (Trevor Howard). Trevor's character takes an immediate dislike to Gable's character, seeing him as a nearly worthless "woman of a man", to preoccupied with his fancy clothes and elevated societal station to be bothered with the day to day problems of the ship. This tension develops slowly, but clearly as the Bounty leaves England, bound for the West Indies. Fantastic character development, including the quick friendships established by Gable with the rough and tumble crew, in direct conflict with Bligh's management style of discipline in favor of praise. Clearly neither is entirely correct, and the effective officer of that time would have been the one capable of equitably balancing the two. This is where Frank LLoyd does an excellent job of allowing these two disparate shipmates, bump into each other, lock horns, and enter into lengthy intellectual debates over dinner. All of which is fueling the powder keg that will soon erupt. This excellently made and acted film, does not show its age, and stands up to its two descendants. Keep in mind that it was filmed in 1935, and was truly the first of its kind. Heroism, Cowardess, Fear, Lust, Rage, Vengeance, Anguish and world class seamanship worthy of the Navy's highest award, combine in this maritime flick, surrounding a very long trip to the grocery store to but a large quantity of vegetables that nobody wants to eat. For those who enjoy the "Bounty" series of films, I highly recommend you visit the Pitcarine Island website, to learn more about Fletcher Christian's descendants, as well as those of several of the other "mutineer". http://www.nic.pn/ The Island currently has approximately 75 year round residents, most of which are direct descendants of the mutineers, Fletcher Christian, John Adams, Edward Young, William McCoy, and Matthew Quintal. You can get there, but its VERY, VERY hard. You'll need to come via New Zealand, and wait for a passing cargo ship, with plans to stop at Pitcairn Island. The vessel "Bounty" was burned at anchor in Bounty Bay on Pitcairn (to avoid detection), bits and pieces of charred wood remain as keepsakes.

DMON 👑

27/06/2023 16:00

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

Prisca

27/06/2023 16:00

This is a marvelous movie in a couple respects. One is the thrill of the ship, a thrill that is more effective in its way than anything modern. Compare this to "Master and Commander," in which the ship existed only as an assembly of parts which we knew would noisily disassemble. I suppose may would celebrate the performances. Well, yeah, I suppose. Or the location shots which are honest but oddly out of place. What gives me a thrill is how well assembled this was from the editor's point of view. These were days when the job was really nasty work, huge rooms, hanging films, tedious looping and physical taping. It was an unappreciated creative task, and because the studio system had restrictive philosophies in how it was done, it was essentially a task for clerks. The editor in Hollywood wouldn't be appreciated until the late sixties when "Easy Rider" spawned the independent movement. Here's a tremendous example of the value of the editor. In this case its Margaret Booth, who sorta followed a secretarial path to head the editing department at the studio, then the center of film-making for the world, moneywise. For the most part she followed the rules. But here for some reason she did something quite different than usual. Consider. The challenges of this story are significant. There's a long, very long first segment of the voyage out where we are shown the reason for the complaints. Because the nature of shipyard life and the complications of the conflict are pretty complex, this cannot be shorter. Then there's a segment in Tahiti where some love happens. This is as short as possible, but because it has to balance the weight of confinement and at the same time justify (for us) the location shooting, its still long. Then a segment of the mutiny itself. Then the longish voyage of Bligh. The chase, the escape, the trail, the coda. Now that's an awful lot. Too much by double, even compared to "Gone with the Wind." I'd like to direct your attention to "Gladiator," and Ridley Scott's technique of shaping each scene so that it is open at the end, not closed. Its open in a way that anticipates the next. In a regular movie, each scene is dispensed as a discrete, readable segment that opens and closes. It is the job of the story and associated elements to keep us engaged. In Gladiator, the story is too diffuse, so Scott shapes the scenes (and Crowe) so that each scene has its center of gravity in the next. We tip into the future. Its a joy to watch even if the thing itself is a bit inelegant. Watch that, then see what Maggie has done here, apparently without the help or even knowledge of the directors. She's assembled the footage in a way that's open at the end, anticipatory. It isn't alas a simple matter of cutting scenes short, or overlapping sound (which would come later). Its a matter of tuning into the very subtle rhythms of a setup, then ending it at a midbeat. Without the patterning of jazz from the period, we wouldn't have been able to read the subliminal syncopation. But here it is, as a sort of micromutiny. Thanks, Ms Booth. Oh, the story? They forgot to include the cabinboy. Funny how the British navy conveniently forgets the institutional buggery. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

faijal

27/06/2023 16:00

I honestly loved Mutiny on the Bounty, and I will say I am one of those people who prefers this version over the 1962 film. Some people might say that the screenplay is questionable, but personally I had no problem with it. Mutiny on the Bounty is a lavish and stirring adventure on the high seas, that is thoroughly entertaining and exciting. The location shooting, sets, costumes and cinematography are fabulous, and the music score is suitably rousing and bombastic. Add some clever direction, secure pacing(I personally found this a problem in the 1962 version), a strong story and some nice scripting and you have a strong film. That just leaves the acting, while Clark Gable, Donald Crisp and Franchot Tone give wonderful performances, it is Charles Laughton as complex Captain Bligh who steals the show. It is easily one of Laughton's best performances, and this is giving honourable mention to the 1939 film The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where he played a grotesque yet poignant Quasimodo. Overall, wonderful, exciting film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Ashish Chanchlani

27/06/2023 16:00

... but that doesn't mean that I think it was the best picture of 1935. I'd probably give that nod to Top Hat. But 1935 was the first full year that the motion picture production code was in force, and so there were many adjustments being made. One was that the studios turned heavily to period pieces to pacify the censors, because they could argue that with all of those ruffles, top jackets, and petticoats in the way, there was no possibility any of the characters could be having sex! But this is a fine production in spite of the reason it was probably made. MGM movies made in the era of Irving Thalberg were generally top notch in attention to detail. Of course, the acting is really the best part of the film. And I have to give special kudos to Franchot Tone. Never the star at MGM that Gable was, and never the legend that Laughton was, he gives a very nuanced performance of a man conflicted. His character has his loyalty to the British navy steeped into his being, probably due to family background, and thus wants no part of a mutiny, yet he sees the cruelty of Captain Bligh's treatment of the men and is fast friends with Fletcher Christian (Gable). Laughton always gives a fine performance, but his performance as Captain Bligh is a bit one note here, threatening to chew scenery but ultimately resisting the urge. At no point did I ever see him as anything but two dimensionally cruel, and we have nothing to tell us WHY he behaves this way. Gable has star quality as Fletcher Christian in probably the best role MGM ever gave him. How many people would remember him if not for the two roles he had at other studios in "It Happened One Night" and "Gone With the Wind"? The fact that all three main actors here were nominated for Best Actor of 1935 probably weakened all of their chances, but then Victor McLaglin would have probably won anyways, since he was that good - essentially a one man show in John Ford's "The Informer". My rating is for how much I personally enjoyed the film. If you realize that period pieces adapted from literature are generally not my thing, and yet I enjoyed it and yet it held my interest throughout, I'd say a 7/10 is pretty good coming from me.

mr_kamina_9263

27/06/2023 16:00

In a decade that saw some spectacular movies in a variety of genres (from "All Quiet On The Western Front" in 1930 to "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard Of Oz" in 1939) "Mutiny On The Bounty" is in every way at least equal to and in my opinion better than any of the others. It is a classic example of movie-making at its finest. Technically the film is superb. Well filmed and with realistic sets, the viewer feels as if he really is on an 18th century British Navy vessel. I remember as a teenager coming across this movie halfway through and not really knowing what it was about but being captured by the vividly realistic portrayal of life at sea. That feeling has never gone away when I watch it. The performances are breath-taking. Clark Gable as Fletcher Christian and Franchot Tone as Roger Byam are excellent, but it is Charles Laughton as Bligh who steals the show. Everything about Laughton in this film screams "Captain Bligh," and his is almost certainly the face that comes to mind when one contemplates the historical figure of Bligh. All three were nominated for Oscars, as was director Frank Lloyd (and inexplicably failed to win, although the film itself was named 1935's Best Picture.) The film mixes adventure, gripping drama and even humour into about two and a quarter hours of sheer enjoyment. You can quibble about a few things. Apparently history suggests that Bligh might not have been quite this sadistic nor Christian quite so noble. There's a strange shot of the Bounty being run aground by Christian at Pitcairn Island, and as the ship is about to crash into the island the film inexplicably reverses and the end of the shot is clearly going backward for about 2 seconds. I admit that it was passing strange that both Fletcher Christian and Roger Byam speak with American accents, making one wonder how these guys were in the British Navy (but for the sake of Gable's and Tone's performances that can be overlooked) and at the end the movie gets a bit preachy (particularly Byam's speech to his court-martial.) But these are minor and do not detract from one's enjoyment of the film. Watch this if you never have. Watch it again if you have, and watch it over and over if you can. It is a masterpiece. 9/10

@بلخير الورفلي

27/06/2023 16:00

According to the opening script, this movie is based on actual events which changed the approach to mutiny in the English navy henceforth, and with a quick nod to nationalism. I don't really know the veracity of that claim, I assume it's loosely based on a like event, but I do know that whatever the reality of the event, the filmmakers took great liberties on their imagining of it. By great liberties, I mean that its already ham-handed acting, relatively unsympathetic characters, and maintained focus on Clark Gable's broad shoulders and slightly opened shirt become nothing to the completely unreal and vaguely racist look at Tahiti, and all of the maudlin "drama" that follows afterwards. This movie is a movie of three images, Charles Laughton being small and mean as Charles Laughton can do well, Clark Gable being heroistic and empathetic, and terribly scoffable images of the virgin native in her softly lit love closeup... continuously. Which is a shame because some of the more interesting imagery and story lines get lost behind such demeaning narrative. There are actually some quite effective feelings of sea-sickness and confinement, or freedom and productivity, as per its use, on the ship, and the overall theme of the story of authoritarian control is pretty gripping. It just loses itself in stardom and moonshine, a story people go for for the actors, not the story or the meaning, and a lot of underhanded tricky things slips in the midst. It's kind of a disgusting movie, really. It's a Classics-classic. So old it's good, hailing back to the days when By Golly! people knew how to make movies. And for what it's worth it will stay that way for a while. It's just not very good. --PolarisDiB

N Tè Bø

27/06/2023 16:00

The famous story of the mutiny on His Majesty's Ship "The Bounty" is given (unjustly) its most famous treatment here. The source material, a book by two authors, may be the cause of the historical inaccuracy displayed in this very overblown, maudlin movie. Charles Laughton as Capt. Bly is sadly wasted in a cardboard role while a miscast Clark Gable impresses as being as British as baseball. Laughton's performance is of the vaudevillian Oil-Can Harry type, complete with paste-on bushy eyebrows and a constant scowl. He orders so many contemptible punishments -which are NOT on the historical record- it's as if the condescending producers pushed the screenwriter to pad the film with Bly's laughable over-the-top parade of brutalities so the "simple" audience "gets" Bly is a maniac. The secondary cast of deck hands are a bunch of grandfathers! The movie is slanted pitilessly against Bly, whose reputation has since been rehabilitated among scholars and naval buffs. The movie may have impressed 1930s audiences but even the less than stellar modern remakes are better than this dated and flawed production.