Style2

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) Directed by Frank Lloyd

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:59 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 31 May 2008)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Of course this movie takes lots of liberties with its story. I mean you shouldn't watch this movie if you want to learn about the true story of the mutiny on the Bounty. For instance for the movie its sake, Captain Bligh is a ruthless almost Hollywood like villain while Fletcher Christian is a saint like hero. Also Captain Bligh never returned to Tahiti for vengeance. Well, he did return to Tahiti but on a different new mission, after he got back to England, to fulfill the very same task he was supposed to carry out with the Bounty, not to search for the mutineers or anything like that. Also the mutiny itself was without any bloodshed and actually quite peaceful. This can be said for certain since there even is no mention of any violence in Blight his logs. Just a few things that makes this movie differ from the truth. There is nothing wrong though of course with taking liberties with the truth, as long as the movie and story benefits from it, which it does. But like I said, just don't watch this movie for your history class.

The movie with its 132 minutes is quite long for a 1935 studio movie. The movie is however just as long as it should be, since there is of course a lot to tell and the movie doesn't really ever bore or drag, though the middle part of the movie is a bit slow and perhaps stretched out a bit.

Quite an achievement that the movie constantly knows to keep your attention, since the story of course is mostly set only aboard a ship. There is plenty happening though and they did a great job with telling the story. Yes, its mostly its story that makes this movie such a great one to watch. It's both adventurous and dramatic.

The movie also is an interesting watch since it features Clark Gable in a rare role without his trademark mustache. He also plays the best role of the movie, also perhaps because Charles Laughton's role isn't always that credible and you have the feeling they perhaps overdid things a little. Not really Charles Laughton's fault though.

It's also a real wonderful looking movie with convincing sequences on sea and aboard the boat. Real high class film-making! The movie also received 8 Oscar nominations but oddly enough only took home the one for Best Picture of the year.

It's still a great and perfectly watchable movie also truly if you aren't really into '30's movies.

9/10

Watch trailer

Island of Lost Souls (1932) Directed by Erle C. Kenton

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 7:17 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 16 January 2007)

 This is the first movie adaption of the H.G. Wells novel; The Island of Dr. Moreau.

 The movie is great to watch but it by no means is a classic. There are a few elements present in this movie that makes it distinct itself from other genre movies at the time but it still fails to really capture the right mood and atmosphere required for a good horror/fantasy movie.

 The movie its story takes a while to take really form even though the pace is surprisingly high. It does work good for the movie its 'mystery' but it doesn't always keep the movie interesting or likely. Of course it's not a requirement for a movie like this to be 'likely' but some more depth and better story flow and more detailed build up and explaining wouldn't had hurt the movie. Of course it's not that the movie is a bad one to watch now but it's just not a "Frankenstein" or "Dracula", though it really could had been, since in essence the potential was really there, with its story and in its style of film-making of the time period.

 The movie is definitely well made when it comes down to the production values and acting. The movie is good looking, with convincing sets and make-up effects for all the 'creatures'. The movie is not as 'campy' as you perhaps would expect and they did a good job at making the movie look as realistic as possible, without ever really getting ridicules by going over-the-top. The cinematography is absolutely great and provides the movie with a couple of creative looking sequences.

 Strangely enough the movie doesn't feature any music during the actual movie itself. Some of the sequences could had really used some (atmospheric) music, also as a tool to perhaps build up the tension. The movie now is almost like a silent-movie at times! Not quite good enough for 1933 standards.

 The movie is perhaps lacking a bit too much in depth, since the story itself offered so many great themes, about playing God for yourself and loosing yourself in the process of it. The movie fails at ever becoming interesting when it comes down to that subject and other deeper meanings in the story.

 The movie is also definitely uplifted by the performances of the cast. Richard Arlen might not be the best leading man but Charles Laughton on the other hand as Dr. Moreau is perfect. He delivers a great performance and puts down the character with the right sinister/well educated tone. I also liked Arthur Hohl in his role. Bela Lugosi also has a small role in the movie as the Sayer of the Law but I really couldn't understand halve of what he was saying! But his presence alone made a great impression.

 I still surprisingly like the 1977 movie version of the novel best.

 7/10

 Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top