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.
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.