TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Cristi_Ciopron A drama with Angela Lansbury as an adventuress, very typecast as a heartless girl, and by far the best of the cast, as she gives her role a very believable glimmer of sleaze; M. Stevens plays the righteous captain, and he's handsome and reasonably at ease, Knowles plays the renegade, and he's quite withered and outworn, drained, , his character doesn't as much choose honor, as he chooses to get rid of the poison ivy, and this newfound disgust should of been more gradual. Ankrum has a bit part. But for '52, when this movie has been released, this was certainly a 2nd rate cast. Fortunately, its plot is very unconventional and surprising, being written by Yordan, and the story is intriguing without being very deep, and as often with this director there's no depth of the sentiments, there are a few Z movies from the '40s and '50s, with seamen, that have much more dramatic depth, and in Dmytryk's movie the misfire was perhaps Knowles' unrequited passion, the director seems to have lacked sense for its human dimension, he was a mediocre craftsman who had learned the basics of the Hollywoodian show, and he misfires here like elsewhere.Angela Lansbury has a great scene as she joins the pirates, when they discover the gold. She's billed 2nd and makes the most of her role, her strength being obvious in how she dominates the movie and makes it suit her performance. Her character is concomitantly spectral and freakish, like from 'The Master of Ballantrae'.Gene Evans does a good role as a foment-er of mutiny. These are movie pirates, but colorful enough, check out the one who gets promoted 2nd mate after the mutiny. While Knowles is credible as a tormented guy, gloomy and unprincipled, he wasn't the best choice for this movie; if his character has the requisite bitterness, it's not only that I would of liked him otherwise, but it leaves an aftertaste of mediocrity. The renegade's awakening is somewhat subdued; but perhaps the player achieves a kind of resigned, unappealing dignity. Given the result, the director seems to haven't been kin on the sea dimension, and also to have been uninspired or mediocre with the drama; neglecting one, and clumsy with the other.This is a refined and stylish movie, written by Yordan, scored by Tiomkin, directed by Dmytryk, who was artistically an old-believer; I write about him and his movies now and then. I think he gained his fame more by political option, than by his craft, which was fair but very conventional.For some time, one might expect a dirty dozen story, with the assembling of a crew of scoundrels who are thus offered a 2nd chance, yet the story is very grim and quite sordid, and the sea doesn't really play any special role, it's just a sleazy tale well filmed; it's not the lavish epic promised by the poster, but a tale of betrayal and violence, with insufficiently deepened characters and a plot that's surprising because it contradicts the usual stock events and hints at sleaze and has a certain violence and rough characters, with their bare vehemence (and the motley crew is uniformly made of wicked hoodlums), not because it's inventive or striking. The sea isn't more than the set for the drama, until the use of the submersible, which occasioned the best scene of the movie; I return to the poster, with its promise of a sea epic, the film does look beautiful, but as a creepy drama, in another genre altogether …. But the director, whatever one might think of him, isn't everything, and especially not in a genre movie, and 'Mutiny' does give pleasure, and the director's craft should also be acknowledged, I liked this movie, and I believe it valuable for what it is, and it was refreshing to see the actress (the only woman in the movie, save for three partying girls at the beginning) in one of her early roles. She looks spectral, unearthly, spooky, in those uncanny evening scenes. But she gains her authority by overplaying what must of been a schematically written character: a shocking one, but without dramatic resources.I enjoyed the underwater photography of the submersible. It was very pleasing for the mind, and I would of liked it to be way longer.There's a sword-fight scene towards the denouement.Dmytryk, though a radical in his politics, was very conservative and even old-fashioned in his movie-making.

Robert J. Maxwell "Each man kills the thing he loves," wrote Oscar Wilde in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol,". Poor Patrick Knowles, trapped in a prison of his own making, kills the thing that's keeping him there, the bitchy Angela Lansbury. Well, she deserved it. She was about to stab Captain Mark Stevens, who is trying to sneak his ship full of gold past the British blockade in the War of 1812. We don't hear much about the War of 1812, probably because we didn't "win" it. And the burning of the White House was hardly an American home run. In the original "Master and Commander", the enemy "Acheron" was an American ship, not French. The British blockade featured in this film was successful -- to the extent that the Brits wanted it to be successful -- because after finishing with Napoleon in Europe, Britain found itself with a much larger fleet. The Battle of New Orleans, which made a hero of Andrew Jackson, was a major victory for the US -- fought several months after the signing of the peace treaty. News didn't travel at the speed of light in 1814.Let's see. I believe that takes care of the historical interlude. Now back to the movie, such as it is. The acting. Nobody stands out. How could they, when the script is so burdened with stereotypes? Mark Stevens is the hero. Patrick Knowles is the weak first officer who betrays his friend and pays for it by self sacrifice later. He grovels at the feet of Angela Lansbury who is treacherous, selfish, and unworthy of his devotion. Gene Evans is the grubby leader of the inevitable mutiny. The officers and guests dine at a genteel dinner table. The crew are slobs and get drunk.The dialog is larded with nautical expressions. "Keep a weather eye open for the captain." A submarine sinks a British ship, but the submarine is far more advanced than that used by the Confederates fifty years later. Much of the story is filmed at night and the upload on YouTube shows it as splotches of black and white.It's not insulting or preachy. It's simply one hundred percent routine, the pinnacle of commercial perfection.

jjnxn-1 Where to begin with this bottom of the barrel adventure? Dmytryk was always an inconsistent director able to produce fine films like "The Caine Mutiny" and "Broken Lance" as well as high gloss trash such as "Walk on the Wild Side" and "Where Love Has Gone" and slug like this. Strictly paying the rent actors give lackluster performances. Angela looks great and gives the film's best performance but why oh why is she wearing a 1950's evening dress on a warship in 1812? Painfully obvious that this was filmed on the cheap in a studio tank with low lighting to cover the sets shortcomings. A shame since there are not a lot a films about this time period so a wasted opportunity like this is doubly disappointing.

Snow Leopard Though about average overall, "Mutiny" has some strengths, with an interesting period/adventure setting and a couple of good performances. The story includes some good action sequences that help make up for the less interesting stretches. The shipboard atmosphere generally works well, but the lighting and photography are so dark (at least in the print as it now seems to be available) that a lot of details get lost or obscured.The setup has Mark Stevens as the captain of a ship carrying out a special mission during the War of 1812, with Patric Knowles as a disgraced captain who is now serving as second in command, Angela Lansbury as Knowles's greedy and domineering wife, and a mutinous gun crew looking for a way to turn things to their own advantage. It's interesting in taking the historical setting as the backdrop to what becomes a largely private battle of nerves and wills. The circumstances of the war do come into play often enough to make the setting relevant.Knowles is effective in portraying his complicated, somewhat indecisive character, Lansbury gets the kind of role that she used to perform quite believably, and Rhys Williams and Gene Evans are good as the ringleaders of the mutineers. Stevens is solid, but sometimes slightly lacking in energy, as the captain.The finale is the best part of the movie, and it is set up nicely, leading to a three-way showdown with plenty of suspense and action, plus an interesting depiction of a primitive submarine. It's good enough to make up for an overall lack of consistency in much of the rest of the movie. In the earlier parts, especially, the script sometimes takes too long to establish simple points, and it also has some stretches in which some weak dialogue weighs it down. So its by no means perfect, but it does have enough to fill its relatively short running time with a generally interesting story.