Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

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.

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 ...

loza-1 This is a documentary about the people of Pitcairn Island. In among what is straight documentary, there are a few scenes which acts out the mutiny on the Bounty. If that were not bad enough, the action opens with a few old tars telling yarns in a tavern. And if that were not bad enough, the acting in these scenes (Errol Flynn excepted) is really, really bad.It is worth watching as a documentary of Pitcairn Island. It is also worth watching to see the germs of stardom in Errol Flynn.I have never ever seen another film quite like this one - which is just as well.