It's ironic that this 1984 film, "The Bounty," would be the least popular full-length movie about the famous mutiny. It received no awards or major nominations. It had an excellent cast, with top actors and stars on the rise. And, this is the most factual and true rendition of all the films made. It is also the most detailed in the purpose of the voyage, the ship and its crew, and the relationships of the men. It includes the mutiny, the voyage of survival by Bligh and his faithful crew members, and the fate of Fletcher Christian and the rest of the mutineers

So, for its historical rendering, "The Bounty" excels. Many of these details are not covered, or are skimmed over in the more popular movies. For instance, Bligh was a Royal Navy Lieutenant - not a captain. Bligh was the only navy man and only actual officer on board. Christian was not a first lieutenant, but a master. He and all the rest of the leaders of the crew had the ranks of noncommissioned officers and came from the merchant marine. Christian was a known friend of Bligh's before the voyage. Bligh's first mate had already been chosen, so Christian signed on as junior to him. But, Bligh later removed the other mate, Fryer, and put Christian in his place.

Bligh was an accomplished and skilled naval officer. He had served under Captain Cook on his third voyage to the South Pacific, so he alone knew the area and Tahiti. Bligh was not the fierce commander who doled out heavy physical punishment. He was more lenient than most captains in that regard. But, he had a temper, and made many verbal miscues as an officer. All of these things and many more facts of the true story are in this film. It is an excellent account of the voyage of the HMS Bounty, the mutiny, the successful 3,500-mile sea voyage of Bligh and his loyalists on a small boat, and the plight of the mutineers.

So, why then is it not the best, the favorite of all the movies? I think it's because the characters of the other films were much more interesting. Look at the 1935 film, for instance. Charles Laughton was outstanding as a fierce, fear-inspiring captain. Clark Gable was much more interesting as the flamboyant officer and dashing ladies' man. And, then there's the amount of time spent on so much of the factual details. I think the 1984 film spent far too much time covering the five-month layover on Tahiti. The sailing scenes were better and more interesting in the earlier films.

The performances in "The Bounty" were all very good. But, the screenwriters needed to do something to make the leads more interesting - especially Christian and Fryer. There were a couple of excellent supporting performances in this movie. Most notable was that by Liam Neeson as Seaman Charles Churchill. I am among those who find the 1935 Bounty with Laughton and Gable the most exciting and entertaining. I think that drives home a good point that people should not rely too much on movies for accurate history. A movie like the 1935 film can entertain by playing loose with or not including many of the facts or true aspects of the story. And, it can wet one's appetite for history. But, we need then to check the true story in the Encyclopedia Britannica or other sound historical sources.

I thought viewers might be interested in some more facts. Although it had three masts, the Bounty was quite small as could be seen in the early loading scenes. It was only 90 feet long, 24 feet wide, and displaced a mere 230 tons. It had a crew of one officer and 45 men. Compare that to a Man-Of-War, the types of ships we have seen in some of the great naval movies and swashbucklers. For instance, Lord Nelson's ship at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 (just 15 years after the Bounty mutiny) displaced 3,500 tons. It had three masts, each with three to four sails (some as long as 200 feet),and measured 227 feet long and 52 feet wide. It carried a crew of 850 men - nearly 20 times the size of the Bounty's crew. And, it had 104 canons; 4 in the bow, 8 astern, and 56 each aligned on three gun decks on each side. It could make 8 to 9 knots an hour - about 10 miles per hour.

The HMS Victory is still in service as the flagship of the Royal Navy Fleet Admiral at Portsmouth, England. MGM used existing sailing ships for its 1935 film to represent the Bounty and the Pandora. Fewer tall ships existed by 1962, and MGM built a replica for its film that year with Marlon Brando. After the movie it sailed around the world as a tourist attraction, but sank off the coast of North Carolina after the crew abandoned it during a hurricane in 2012. Another replica was made for this 1984 film, and today it serves as a tourist boat in Honk Kong Harbor. In 1957, divers from National Geographic discovered the ruins of the Bounty at Pitcairn Island. And, that island today has about 56 residents, descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the Tahitians who went with them.

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.

The latest retelling of this tale shifts a lot of the blame about the voyage over to Fletcher Christian and the fact that he and a lot of the crew had simply gone native.

One of the great villainous portrayals on the screen is Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh from the stirring 1935 film. Laughton is pretty unforgettable with that jutting lower lip and that bellowing voice at the crew. Anthony Hopkins has given us a kinder, gentler view of Bligh which may be far closer to the facts.

Bligh certainly was a stern taskmaster as a captain of a naval vessel. In fact he served with distinction in several naval battles during the Napoleonic wars. What he unfortunately had was a sarcastic tongue, something not really needed for what in fact was a peaceful voyage to obtain breadfruit plants.

Scurvy which is caused by a Vitamin C deficiency ran rampant on the ocean going ships of the time, none more so than in British ships because they had the most of them. This was a pretty important voyage, to bring back Tahitian breadfruit to see if it could be cultivated in the climate of the United Kingdom. Maybe the mistake was in not sending a civilian ship to do the job, who knows.

Anyway Bligh punished men who got out of line, no more so than what was normal. The problem arose when after months at sea, his crew got just too used to frolicking among the female population of Tahiti. That would also unfortunately include Bligh's second mate Fletcher Christian, played in this version by Mel Gibson.

It wasn't Bligh's fault they lingered in Tahiti, the plants had to be mature enough to stand the voyage to Great Britain. Nevertheless the lack of discipline there, contrasted with what was expected of British seaman on a naval vessel, a return to that life was what led to the mutiny.

Certainly Fletcher Christian by all accounts was a charismatic guy, he would have to have been to get the men to mutiny. He was portrayed by four charismatic actors, Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Marlon Brando, and now Mel Gibson. Only his intervention prevented the men from killing Bligh and a few others.

What I like most about this version is the fact that it does give due attention to Bligh's remarkable voyage in a long boat to Timor which was some 1500 miles from where he and the loyalists were cast adrift. It was a remarkable piece of seamanship, no mutinies during that voyage.

The luckless Captain Bligh also had the misfortune to be the Governor of New South Wales, appointed by the Crown, and was overthrown there in a power struggle with the merchants of the colony. That didn't help his historical reputation a bit.

Among the crew of the Bounty you will find Daniel Day-Lewis as John Fryer who Bligh replaced mid voyage with Fletcher Christian and Liam Neeson as one of the mutineers. Laurence Olivier plays Admiral Hood who led the court of inquiry that cleared Bligh of blame for the mutiny.

Still Hopkins and Gibson dominate the film with their skills and talents. Who knows who might bring the saga of this troubled ship next to the screen. This story has fascinated us for generations.