Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

schines_22 This is apparently a twist on the 1958 original in which instead of a young, sexy nurse, it is a middle aged lesbian who falls for the French plantation owner on a south pacific island during WWII. I started watching this because I liked the original, but honestly, I couldn't finish this travesty. Harry Connick Jr is the only cast member who is remotely watchable. It seems to be universally acknowledged by everyone except Glenn Close that Glenn Close is decades too old for the role of Nellie. Songs have been deleted or changed. I'll never know why people try to remake classic movies with major changes just for the sake of change. No reason to watch this unless you need a laugh. Please don't judge the original by this farce!

phd_travel This version is terrible why on earth did they bother? If this is your first time watching "South Pacific" don't watch this version just go for the original. If you have seen the original don't watch this one or you'll spoil your image of "South Pacific".The casting is horrendous. Glenn Close is too ugly for what is a romantic lead role. She has no charm compared with Mitzi Gaynor. The new guy playing Emile is too scruffy and crude looking. He spoils one of the most romantic songs in musical history. In the original Brazzi was much more suited to the role - suave and romantic.Harry Connick's voice is not right for this type of singing - too Sinatra like. It has to be more Broadway verging on operatic. His love interest is played by a very common looking girl hardly worth falling in love with. Compared to the original France Nguyen was so much prettier. The Bloody Mary actress is hideous too.This must rank as one of the worst remakes of a musical ever. Even the scenery is uglier and not magical at all. Avoid at all costs.

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.

BadWebDiver I think this version of the classic stage musical works very well. It manages to capture the drama and a lot of the comedy of the original stage play, as well as fleshing out the locations and presenting the character drama very well.I especially like the way that the musical numbers are presented "dramatically"; not just glorified pop songs that are tacked on to the storyline as in a lot of contemporary musical films (like EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU and even MOULIN ROUGE). It helps that the songs are purposely written for the story. The lyrics are delivered like dialogue that has been set to music, and I can tell the actors have been told to play their characters even through the song numbers.It's the main reason I think Glenn Close actually works as the lead female role here - even if she may be technically a bit old for the young love-lorn romantic; she certainly has the personality, and presents her role with enthusiasm; which goes along way in musical presentations.And Robert Pastorelli as the mischievous Luther is also very well-cast and has the right "feel" for the role; even if he isn't the sort you would normally associate with a classic musical role.As as an Aussie I have to congratulate Jack Thompson for playing the role of the Commander, who I think is one of the most underrated non-singing comic support roles in a musical. He puts a lot of personality in the role, and his balance or enthusiasm and dramatic gravitas was very well presented.Harry Connick Jnr is still one of my favourite modern singers, and he handled the military aspects and the romantic ballads very professionally. His personality seems somewhat subdued in this production; though I personally attribute that to the rather bland character that I think Cable is. I haven't seen any performance of this character I would regard as memorable.Overall a very high standard production that plays the story very well - and really kicks the stuffing out of the earlier film version, quite frankly.