Borserie
it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.
Joanna Mccarty
Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.
Scuz-Presland
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.
benbrae76
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.
BeckeySue2
Glenn Close was far too old, couldn't sing, and did not look soft and sweetly naive, but rather brusque.The only other cast member almost as bad as Close was the actress who played "Bloody Mary." She was funny looking, could not sing, and seemed downright evil.Gone was the comedy, which was needed. Not having painted backdrops instead of sets was probably the only improvement on the original. Whoever was responsible for this seemed to be trying to screw up the story line as much as possible in the name of originality.It was AWFUL. I will be shocked if this one is EVER repeated. It should be destroyed.
david_kravitz
I enjoyed this TV movie more than many because it followed the original score albeit in a different sequence. As one of a series including Annie and Music Man, Disney are to be applauded for remaking these musicals. Clearly they have spent a lot of money. More, please. Glenn Close does well and helped in the production. She looks good as does most of the cast. Most of the original score is there but I have two criticisms. The lead male should have had a much deeper voice and secondly, what happened to the (arguably) best song in the show, Happy Talk? A great song and, I think, the only one to ever head the Top Twenty music charts, certainly in the UK.
