South Pacific (2001)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Good movie but grossly overrated

Absolutely Fantastic

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Only recently did I fall in love with this musical when I watched Lincoln Center's stage production on PBS. I was curious to know more of its history and watched the movie adaptations from 1958 and 2001. Movies are definitely a different genre from the stage, and it was interesting to see that in each version, the choice was to develop dialog into visual action, focusing on rounding out a fuller story, rather than relying on the musical emphasis to tell the story. Stage productions demand more movement from the characters, more choreography, while the camera allows for more still and close encounters. On stage, the movement and music are what tell the story.In the bonus feature of the DVD, Ms. Close says something along the lines that a classic is a classic when it can endure many interpretations and retain its integrity. She also stated that she had wanted to do this all her life and remembered Mary Martin as the model for this role. It seems circumstances happened for her to fulfill her dream, albeit at middle-age. So it seems that a new adaptation for this more mature casting lent a new interpretation to this classic. They followed the precedent of the 1958 version in many ways, and even used colored filters for the Bali Hai number – with much better technique and effects! Overall, I thought the story, as they chose to adapt it, was put together very skillfully.I noticed in this adaptation that most all of the comic edge was taken out. In its place was a kind of dramatic /romantic pathos, which made the tempo a little slower and more deliberate. The re-arranging of some scenes, and certain deletions, contributed to a change in tensions between characters and in the flow of the story than found in the stage production.I thought the acting was very good all around. Ms. Close also talks about using dramatic interpretation for the songs, while singing. I very much appreciated her dramatic interpretation of the songs. But also felt there was a limitation in voice skill, and perhaps due to careful casting, the rest of the cast did not give her much competition. The interpretations through music seemed consistent with the pathos already established through dialog. There was no singing between Emile and Nellie in the scene at Emile's house when the guests have gone home. And Bloody Mary's 'Happy Talk" was also cut, as well as 'My girl back home…'. Again, the kinds of music deletions (as well as interpretations) gave the film a different emphasis. Even though it is a musical and uses music, it did not rely on the music (singing and orchestra) to tell the story as much as a stage production.However, the choral numbers (Nothin like a dame..." and "Wash that man..") I thought well were thought out and executed very well. Especially, the former: I fully enjoyed the composition of the shots and the editing. I noticed very wonderful composition of shots throughout.Though there is no specific age given for Nellie, plot elements do define it to some degree. Nellie struggles with her mother's assumptions and expectations for her daughter, especially regarding men and marriage, which might apply more to a younger woman transitioning away from home and parents, rather than a middle-aged woman. Indeed, the lines about marriage and men for Ms. Close's Nellie were cut in this scene with her mother's letter, as was any serious indication of an emotional struggle. This struggle, and the struggle with if she really knows enough about this man, give her character an emotional juggling act more typical for a younger woman in the new stages of love. But with the first struggle essentially cut,the tension of two struggles and the juggling is lost. Indeed, Ms.Close's Nellie seemed very confident, independent and secure, never too overwhelmed. Also, with a middle-aged Nellie, there has to be some assumption that she has her own romantic history, a certain wisdom from experience. Not all the traditional elements of the original play work for this interpretation.Another characteristic of Nellie is her southern roots. Ms. Close did not play her with any dialect, perhaps wisely. But I found that emphasizing to some degree this characteristic helps in the development of Nellie and her reaction to the news of Emile's children's mother.One of my favorite roles of Ms. Close is Sarah in "Sarah, Plain and Tall" (and its sequels), and she plays Nellie in a very similar fashion, which helped me understand her interpretation of Nellie a little better. (I personally would have preferred a softer hair-do and a few more feminine costumes for her Nellie.)

Is there anything good I can I say about this dire remake of "South Pacific"? The answer is an emphatic no. It is just awful.Firstly..."South Pacific" is not really a war story as partially depicted here. It is a romantic musical in a war setting (with a few comments on racial bigotry thrown in).Secondly...The singing is listless, the acting abominable, the dancing lifeless, the casting uninspired and the settings abysmal, and in fact all of the above adjectives can be interchangeable. I've seen better productions (and performances) by amateur companies, and even at a school play.Thirdly...Whoever thought of casting Glenn Close as a perky 20 year old nurse, must have serious eye and brain defects, or perhaps an extreme attack of vanity, and the rest of the actors looked as if they couldn't believe what they'd let themselves in for. I'm not surprised, and why this atrocious insult to a great musical was made is beyond comprehension, and all involved should be tested for their sanity (or insanity).Fourthly...There are many remarks made by reviewers of the similarity of the age of Glenn Close to that of Mary Martin when the latter was performing the same role. But none of them made the point that Mary Martin performed on stage, and thus at a distance (and with make-up) she could quite easily get away with portraying a younger woman. But Glenn Close performed in front of the camera which (one is always told) never lies. And it certainly didn't here.And finally...The only reason to watch this movie, is to judge how bad it is, especially in comparison to the vivaciously energetic and enchanting qualities of the 1958 production. This 2001 remake doesn't even come close.

I loved this new fresh version of what has to be the best Rodgers and Hammerstein movie. The songs are beautifully delivered and being on a smaller screen (poverty wins at last!) means that wrinkles, pan-cake don't show. I missed "Happy Talk" (hence 8/10) but loved the remake unreservedly, as the colour changes in the original drove me crazy as did the original Luther Billis. I thought that this version had been remade perfectly for modern audiences who weren't old enough to have gone to the stage production or who weren't reared on Mitzi Gaynor and co. Today's audiences don't want to sit for 3+ hours, and I felt that this captured the spirit of it without labouring on. No problems here with Glenn Close, and I thought she would have been an older woman (we can't all be under 30)anyway, career nurse etc, making it all so reasonable.

Harry Connick Jr is great in South Pacific, this film contain's a lot of heart to heart moments which makes the viewers who see it fall in love with the on screen cast, its much better then the original at least in my opinion, it is a memorable movie and i believe anyone who likes movies about war and romance will be hooked on it, the cast and crew put together a masterpiece that will live on forever in the minds of all movie lovers, it is greatly put together and all the actors and actresses gave us a beautiful show that we will never forget, South Pacific will live on forever, it is truly a masterpiece and at least in my opinion the greatest romance movie ever.