Top critical review
2 people found this helpful
We Came To See The Sea
on November 30, 2003
You'll noticed most of the early Oscar winners were films that were heavy-handed. They appeared as if they wanted to be seen as important. Watch "Wings", "All Quite On The Western Front", "Cimarron", "The Life of Emile Zola", and director Frank Lloyd's other Oscar winner "Cavalcade". All of these films seem as if they are shoving an important message down our throats, mind you, not that they are bad films, well, maybe except for "Cimarron". But, "Mutiny on the Bounty" is actually one of the few films to have won the Oscar that didn't appear as "important" as the others. It appears as if it merely wants to entertain. Other films that belong on that list are "The Broadway Melody of 1929", and two Frank Capra films "It Happened One Night" & "You Can't Take It With You". And that's it.
"Mutiny on the Bounty" when released was one of the most expensive films ever made, I believe somewhere between 2-4 million. But watch the wonderful detail given to the film. There are lavish production and costume designs. So, if you like that sort of thing, keep your eyes open.
Now, I've noticed that some people bash the movie because they feel it doesn't create an accurate description of what really happened. My answer to this is, who cares? Lets judge the movie on cinematic terms not historical. As a movie does it entertain? Yes. Is there good acting? Yes. You have three Oscar nominated performances here, Charles Laughton, to me comes out looking the best. Clark Gable gives one of his best, though, I admit I never really thought of him as a "great" actor. He was fine for certain roles but I never felt he had a wide range. Though to be fair I must admit he did have a lot of charisma, which is undoubtedly why he made in it the movies. And finally you have Franchot Tone who gives a warm performance as Roger Byam. Another important question to ask is how is the directing? Lloyd who had just won the Oscar for "Cavalcade" I think does a better job here. So, please don't judge the movie based on historical facts. We should all know the movies embellish the truth. Judge the film on the own merits. So is it a good movie? Yes. It proves to entertain it's audiences, it has some wonderful acting, handsome sets and costumes, moments of action and human drama, and is mildly amusing at times. It is worth seeing if your a Laughton or Gable fan. Or if you interested in seeing the early Oscar winners.
Here's an interesting fact. Did you know Wallace Berry was the original choice for Capt. Bligh? He turned the role down because he didn't like Gable, and didn't want to be on set with him for a long period of time. What makes this so interesting is if anyone out there is 500 years old like myself you'll recall the two made some films togther. In 1935, the same year as this picture they made "China Seas" (Jean Harlow co-starred), and "Hell Divers" (A movie about two rival pilots) which I think was made in 1931 maybe 1930, I'm not sure. *** 1\2 out of *****
Bottom-line: One of the more entertaing early Oscar winners. Not as heavy-handed. Very good acting, strong directing, and lots of action and more human scenes.