This is a pretty fair movie about the mistreatment of seamen during the early 19th Century. However, it bears almost no resemblance to "Two Years Before the Mast". For a start, the credits say that the film is "based upon the novel by Richard Henry Dana". That, alone, is a pretty clear indication that nobody involved in the production of the movie had ever read the book because it was definitely NOT a novel. Dana was a college student at Harvard who took a sabbatical to ship out on a vessel belonging to the father of a friend of his in order to regain his health. The book was an account of his experiences, and it was NOT a work of fiction. There was no mutiny nor was anybody on board murdered. As a matter of fact, Dana did not even return on the ship started out on but on another ship that was homeward-bound, because the ship he sailed over on remained in California. Dana returned to Harvard, where he completed his studies and became a lawyer. During the course of his career he not only became an outspoken advocate not only for the rights of seamen, but for freedmen and fugitive slaves as well. For the benefit of those who may wonder about the peculiar title, the term "before the mast" is an old term used on merchant ships to denotes sailing as a member of the crew, rather than as an officer or a passenger. The officers and passengers lived aft, in cabins. The crew lived up forward , not in cabins but in a single compartment that was originally called the "fore castle", but which was generally shortened to "focs'l". The "focs'l" was located at the forward end of the ship, forward of the masts, so that to sail "before the mast" was to be a seaman. Incidentally, although modern seamen live in individual staterooms, to this day many still refer to their stateroom as their "focs'l". Of course, none of the above applied to Navy ships, in which the officers lived in a "wardroom" and where there was no such thing as a "focs'l". As a swashbuckling adventure movie "Two Years Before the Mast" compares favorably with others of that genre. However, those interested in the contents of Dana's book would be recommended not to take anything from this movie as representative of it.

In the 1830's, the foppish son of a ship owner is shanghaied aboard his father's ship where he experiences the harsh realities of a brutal captain.Leonard Maltin gives the movie a 1 & ½ out of 4. Shame on him. Sure, the film is no Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), and the script could be sharper. But, it's still a riveting shipboard drama, thanks to a fine cast, a good story, and a strong moral lesson. In the movie's pivotal role, Ladd transitions from a spoiled fop to a man among men in convincing fashion. The actor was never one to emote; at the same time, his low-key manner blends in well with the macho crew. And a heckuva crew it is—such forceful types as Dekker, Bendix, Donlevy, and, of course, a fearsome Howard DaSilva as the brutal captain. Mix and stir and you've got the ingredients of a highly combustible drama.Of course, old Hollywood always created its own version of history. It's no secret the studios habitually bent fact in return for commercial appeal. So its not surprising that Paramount took liberties with the Dana book. For example, the script works a woman (Fernandez) onto the ship, which is not in the book. I expect they did that to burnish Ladd's appeal as a leading man and to widen audience appeal to include women-- never mind the facts of the book. As some anonymous wag put it-- never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.Fortunately, it is a good story, even if the ship never leaves the sound stage. However, I wish director Farrow had made better use of close-ups to underscore dramatic high points. He's too impassive in what amounts to a very involving story. That aside, the movie certainly rates far better than a 1 & ½.

By several respects ,some kind of updated "Captain courageous" (Victor Fleming ,1937).The rich kid (Alan Ladd) has grown up and he is still frivolous ,part of the young jet set ,drinking and picking up girls in the low dives of the harbor.When dad learns that his boy is on his own ship,in the clutch of a -rather sadistic- captain ,he does not panic and wisely mumbles something like " it 'll make a man of him" ;which is not entirely false.Not only ,the boy born silver spoon in hand will learn the harsh realities of life ,but he'll also feel for his unfortunate shipmates (many of them poor press-ganged aboard victims like himself ).Although the movie is centered on Ladd's misadventures ,it actually depicts "Henry Dana's crusade to expose mistreatment of men at sea" (Maltin).But the reviewer is wrong when he writes that it is a "badly scripted story":in fact only the female character gets in the way and the ending is botched.All that remains is absorbing ,the standout being for me the ship's boy.Farrow was better at film noir ,but his attempt at an adventures movies is recommendable.Like this ? try these ...."Mutiny on the Bounty" (Frank Lloyd's 1935 version is still the best) "Captain Courageous" (Fleming,1937) "Down to the sea in ships" (Henry Hathaway,1949) "Ghost Ship" (Mark Robson/Val Lewton,1943) "White squall" (Ridley Scott,1996)

This is a movie to see to get a feel for what it must have been like back in the "good old days" of tall ships and iron men. Lemme tell ya, the cruise ships of today are as far from "sailing" as a toy poodle is from a wolf.This is one of my favorite movies, Alan Ladd is wonderful as the spoiled rich boy, while Howard Da Silva as the ruthless captain only interested in setting a new record around Cape Horn creates a new high-water mark for callousness. (What's with sea captains in Hollywood movies, anyway? If it's not the bumbling incompetence of Bogart's Queeg it's the cold heartlessness of Trevor Howard and Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh.) The stowaway kid (Darryl Hickman) is a bit over-the-top I admit, but it seems they all were in movies made back then. Speaking of back then, this baby is in black-and-white, and although some of the scenes in the various waterfront bars and in the hold of the ship benefit thereby, the outdoor scenes suffer a bit because of it. And speaking of outdoor scenes, they really didn't put much of the budget into special effects, as the boat looks exactly like what it is, a toy bobbing around in someone's bathtub.Still, that's not why people love this movie. It's the fascination of watching Alan Ladd's Charles Stewart transformed from rich, obnoxious playboy into deeply affected human being as he watches the massive cruelty and abuse around him. The cruelty and virtual slavery of these sailors is portrayed with an unflinching eye, and you're cheering along with them when the final confrontation unfolds. As someone wiser than me observed, "Going to sea is going to jail, with a chance at drowning besides."