SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Bereamic Awesome Movie

girvsjoint Most reviewers seem to have the wrong idea about this film, it's not meant to be a version of 'Mutiny on the Bounty' or even a feature film! It's basically a doco/travelogue, with a few 'flashbacks' enacting a few scenes of the Bounty 'drama'. The main interest is the scenes filmed on Pitcairn Island, probably the first, and the far from ideal living conditions of the inhabitants. Of the 'dramatic' scenes spliced in, considering the lead was most likely a seasoned 'stage' actor, and hammy as they come, the young, totally inexperienced Errol Flynn, signed for his looks alone, probably comes out best of all? It wasn't this film that Jack Warner signed him on, it was a 'lost' movie called 'Murder in Monte Carlo' he made in England about a year later that got him to Hollywood, and the rest as they say, is history! Incidentally, the derogatory remarks made about Australia by another reviewer, are nonsense!

Michael_Elliott In the Wake of the Bounty (1933) * 1/2 (out of 4) Errol Flynn made his debut in this film, which is an early version of Mutiny on the Bounty as well as a travelogue. The old sailor sits at a bar and tells the story of Fletcher Christian (Flynn) and that infamous journey where he helped lead a mutiny. This footage is told via a story but half of the film uses narration to talk about the Pitcairn Island, which is where the travelogue stuff comes from. For some strange reason it was this film, which made Warner sign Flynn, which is rather shocking because he is very wooden in his few scenes here but I guess the studio could have been going on his looks. The film contains quite a bit of female nudity from the locals on the island but these seem more like models due to their looks. This is a really strange film but thankfully it just runs 60-minutes but in the end this is just for those wanting to see a young Flynn before fame.

classicsoncall I found the film to be strangely surreal, relating as it does the life on Pitcairn Island for the descendants of Fletcher Christian and his fellow mutineers from the 'Bounty'. After setting Captain Bligh and eighteen of his men adrift in the ocean, Christian and his crew found solace and a life on Pitcairn, seemingly welcomed by the native inhabitants with which they formed an ongoing community. Virtually invisible to ocean going steamers as late as the 1930's, one hundred sixty years of inbreeding among the island's inhabitants is presented as a virtual idyllic utopia.Told in a documentary style with inserted dramatizations of the mutiny, it appears the picture was put together as sort of a travelogue by Expeditionary Films, whose stated goal at the beginning of the story was to take the viewer to strange and exotic places. In that respect it seems to succeed, and I imagine viewers of the time might have marveled at it's story. By the same token, it leaves out large chunks of the Bounty's history, thereby blurring the distinctions between fiction and fact.Going in, I was intrigued by this being Errol Flynn's first movie role. In fact, his first appearance on screen is almost comical, somewhat in a 'Saturday Night Live' kind of way. His role thankfully is presented in the limited flashback scenarios that paint a picture of the mutiny and the angst he experienced as a result. For those interested in swordplay, you might better sit this one out.Considering the film was made in 1933 I was rather impressed with Charles Chauvel's direction and story of this South Seas tale. It's wondrous and weird at the same time and will likely make you thankful for your present circumstances. For anyone wondering what it might be like to live on a secluded tropical island, this is quite the eye opener.

vladimir-137 This film combines documentary, travelogue-style footage with dramatic 'reconstructions' of the mutiny on the Bounty.Much of it is silent, ie with music only, as I recall. It's very much a primitive sound-movie, in which the director is still working with silent movie techniques, although not in any sophisticated way.The acting in the dramatic scenes is uniformly abysmal; very 'stagey' acting even by the more experienced performers. The only interest is in seeing Errol Flynn in his first movie role. He's dreadful: very wooden delivery; as stiff as a parody of amateur theatricals, with no star presence whatsoever.But I find it of interest for this very reason. It shows that even a superstar like Errol Flynn didn't hatch from the egg fully formed, and that however bad you are to start with, there's still hope ...