TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

TheLittleSongbird 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

kmullen-4 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.)

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.

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.