Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- Wake of the Bounty, 1933. A later-day account of the the Bounty's travels and history.*Special Stars- Errol Flynn.*Theme- Men will only be abused for so long and then they will revolt.*Trivia/location/goofs- B&W, 16mm, The earliest on camera film acting role for Errol Flynn as Fletcher Christian. He is related to a member of the Bounty main crew(not Fletcher Christian) on his mother's family side. Location shots in the South Seas where the Bounty was supposed to have traveled.*Emotion- Mr. Flynn is clearly very young, wooden, and shows little on camera charm and camera persona that would make him an icon. Almost silent movie overacting for the camera and cardboard sets in this film. A very rough and hard to enjoy story about the matters connected with The Bounty. This film is not for the average film fan. It is too hard to get through.

bkoganbing I have to admit that I was not sure of what I would be seeing when I finally got a copy of In The Wake Of The Bounty. The Australian film is noted today for being the debut of Errol Flynn in motion pictures is mostly a fine documentary about the lives of the folks on rugged Pitcairn Island, the descendants of the Bounty mutineers and the women they took with them from Tahiti.When MGM did it's grand scale production of Mutiny on the Bounty in 1935, Louis B. Mayer bought all the rights to this film and it was never shown in America intact. Pieces of it were seen in short documentary subjects about Pitcairn Island.The producer/director/writer of In The Wake Of The Bounty was Charles Clauvel who some would credit with being the father of Australian cinema. He and his wife and baby girl took motion picture cameras and a crew to Pitcairn Island and put together a fine feature film documentary. And he had about 15 to 20 minutes of acting.It's a technique that Americans will be familiar with if they watch the History Channel. It calls for the use of some brief live action sequences interspersed with documentary footage and voice-over commentary about whatever event the program is talking about. This is the function of Errol Flynn and the small cast who reenact the Bounty mutiny in microcosm.Certainly Charles Clauvel did not have the facilities that Louis B. Mayer had so reviewers should go easy on this intrepid Australian who went out to a rarely seen part of the world. Instead of comparing In The Wake Of The Bounty to it's later and more known successors, it might better be compared to some of the documentaries of Frank Buck or Martin and Osa Johnson.To be sure the acting isn't of the best caliber, I've seen worse however. The film really didn't need the actors, it should have been much better as a straight documentary.On the other hand Errol Flynn might then have toiled in obscurity and who knows who would have played all those swashbuckling heroes at Warner Brothers.

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.

bamptonj The fictional part of `IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY' is a brief, piecemeal rendition of the typical Bounty saga; resplendent with over-acting, ludicrously stereotypical costumes and substandard directing. It adds nothing to the arcane mystique and unholiness that later versions would impress upon it (particularly Dino De Laurentis's). The scenes used for Tahiti are taken from un-used stock footage with none of the principle actors appearing in them.What is compelling, however, is the style in which the movie is made: for the film is also a documentary on the current inhabitants of Pitcairn Island, nearly all of whom are descendants of Christian and his fellow mutineers. It is pleasantly filmed and makes for very compelling viewing: the footage painting these in-bred islanders as resourceful, unique, and resilient.Errol Flynn's performance is subpar (thought the script doesn't give anyone much scope) and certainly gives no impression whatsoever to his international talent, although it was a scant eighteen months after 'BOUNTY that he would achieve his superstardom.