Watch South Pacific For Free

the audience applauded

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

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.

Although I do prefer the original version, i did enjoy this one. Perhaps we should refrain from comparisons and try to find its own qualities.

The remake of Bye Bye Birdie was lacking in energy, too TV-movie-like, not sharp enough and had only two good performances(proof that being more faithful doesn't automatically make it good), while the animated version of The King and I suffered from useless additional characters and some bizarrely staged musical numbers(Whistle a Happy Tune and It's a Puzzlement being the worst cases). But even they were not as bad as this 2001 version of South Pacific. The 1958 version was a long way from perfect- overlong, had a wooden Rossano Brazzi and distracting colour filtering- and was the weakest of the 1950s-1960s big screen Rodgers and Hammerstein adaptations, it did have Giorgio Tozzi's singing for Emile, nice settings, Juanita Hall, some energetic choreography, Mitzi Gaynor and Ray Walston so there was some entertainment value to be had.With this version, the only redeeming qualities were the beautiful settings(the one and only improvement over the 1958 film) and the magnificent music. The performances just don't work. Glenn Close is a great actress, but here her performance is charmless and her voice too sweet. She is also too old and the camera work is unforgiving. Rade Serbedziga is not quite as wooden as Brazzi in the 1958 film but he never ignites fire, a little lacking in passion. His singing is rather light-weight too, not a bad sound but not noble and rich enough, Some Enchanted Evening doesn't have the sensitive impact. Robert Pastorelli tries his best but considering how diluted the comedy is it does seem that he's trying too hard. Harry Connick Jnr is not a bad singer, one of the better singers in the cast actually, but his voice is not right for Cable, too croony and baritonal, Younger than Springtime sounds strained. And Lori Tan Chinn's Bloody Mary is a disaster, think of a scarier version of Rosanne Barr(a comparison already made) and you have Bloody Mary here, it was just weird.On top of the poor performances and generally just as bad singing, there is very little energetic or entertaining here. The settings are beautiful and this version is better shot than the 1958 film but not much visually comes to life, kind of like do the job but with no heart. As good as the songs are, the richness of the orchestration is missing, not badly played but the warmth and beauty just doesn't come out. The comedy is badly diluted, the cuts of Happy Talk and Billis' classic Brackett office scene are part of the reason but in general the tone of the film is too serious, which deprives the film of life and energy. The pace has too many moments where it feels lethargic and the choreography should have been much more lively and enthusiastic. The direction is pretty much the same as the visuals, gets the job done fairly competently but with none of the heart and charm you expect.All in all, hugely disappointing and a mess. As well as being a contender for being the most disappointing musical remake ever it's also a contender for the worst. 1/10 for the sets and music only. Bethany Cox

The best part of this version is the scenery. The acting was not the best and the singing was dire. Why remake a film, when the original stands the test of time, and is iconic, especially when the main character was played by someone who was at least twice the age meant for the part. Whilst the setting is correct (i.e. the South Pacific), the film does not need to concentrate on the war aspect, as it is a (double) love story set in the war, not about the war. I think that had this been the original version of the film, it would not have stood the test of time. Rogers & Hammerstein must be spinning in their graves to think what has been done to their musical.

Glenn Close is a fabulously versatile actress, so even though she is too old for this role, I think her wonderful acting overrides the problem about her age. She also sings very well, as does most everyone in the movie -- that's an answer to somebody who kvetched about the singing. Harry Connick, Jr. as Lt. Joe Cable? You'd be hard pressed to find much better. Ditto for Lori Tan Chinn, who does a wonderful job with all the acting and singing required of her as Bloody Mary.I can understand being upset with the singing of Rade Sherbedgia as Emile DeBecque, who lacks the operatic voice of Ezio Pinza, Giorgio Tozzi, or even Brian Stokes Mitchell. However, he has a credible musical theater voice, and he does such an amazing job with every minute of acting that his singing is excusable. I, for one, think it's very cool that almost nobody, if anybody, was dubbed. None of the major characters were, at any rate.Lastly, somebody made the comment that this is not a war movie? I have two responses to that. A) It says very clearly that it's an ADAPTATION of James Michener's South Pacific. For an adaptation, they stayed remarkably close to the script. B) The war may not be the main attraction of this movie, but don't you think the tension is much better because of how aware we are of the battle?Overall, I think they did a very commendable job with this movie. In fact, I just bought it. Don't like it? Don't watch it. There are plenty of people that do.