I'm surprised at much of the negative criticism, especially Leonard Matlin's commentary reproduced above.

Contrary to some reviewers I thought Mitzi Gaynor performance and "looks" were perfect for the role of Ensign Nellie Forbush. Her romantic interest, Rossano Brazzi, is sophisticated and handsome, but their age difference is a bit wide.

Ray Walston (Luther Billis)steals each of his many scenes.

I agree with those who view John Kerr (Lt. Joe Cable) as the weakest member of the cast.

It's a shame color filters were used during some of the musical's major songs. The blurring-off color effect takes away from the performances.

Early in the 21st century, the musical theme, interracial romance/marriage, doesn't carry the impact it undoubtedly had back 1949 when the show opened on Broadway.

"South Pacific," released to theaters some 43 years ago, remains an excellent adaptation of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Broadway hit. It belongs in any collection of the American musical theater.

If you've studied Shakespeare, you know that for the most part, films of the Bard's plays just sit there. The same can be said of the brilliant play by Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein and Joshua Logan. It just doesn't translate to film very well. That being said, if you're looking for a film version of "South Pacific" this is the one you need. As uneven as it may at time seem, and as jarring as the color filters may be (though not quite as bad as you may have been led to believe), this version still captures the message and spirit of the 1949 play in so many ways that the 2001 remake does not. Mitzi Gaynor plays Nellie Forbush more convincingly than anyone. Plus, she looks great in her short shorts. Rossano Brazzi (whose singing is handled by Giorgio Tozzi) gives DeBecque that charm that makes us understand what on earth a woman in her 20s would see in him. This film leaves to your imagination exactly what happened when these two characters met. The 2001 remake makes the mistake of showing us how they met. The problem is, we can't understand why the 2001 Nellie is interested in DeBecque. Here it's very clear what the messages are. This is a story about racism, yes, but also what it is that fosters those prejudices, and almost as importantly, freedom. This film, unlike the 2001 version, explains in terms of symbolism why DeBecque murdered the town bully in his past. Here (as in the play), it's because this bully (meaning fascists) was terrorizing people into submission. In the 2001 version, he killed the man because he cheated at cards! Also, John Kerr's Lt. Cable at least seems charming, which Harry Connick, Jr's version does not. The subplot between Cable and Liat is also presented in a more faithful adaptation from the play. Their relationship is doomed because booksmart Cable, no matter what he feels about Liat, can't bring himself to accept the fact that he's falling in love with someone he was raised to see as his inferior. In the 2001 remake, Cable is almost portrayed as a civil rights leader, complete with a newly created fight with a newly created character who makes fun of him for seeing an island girl. The peripheral characters here are also much more likeable and charming than those in the remake. Ray Walston plays Billis exactly as Michener described him in "Tales of the South Pacific," as a wheeler-dealer. In the 2001 remake, Robert Pastorelli tries to make us like him, but his performance is wooden and fails to give the character any charm whatsoever. Your best bet is to see a local performance of "South Pacific" on the stage. Then you'll see what a brilliant piece of work it is, comparable to anything Shakespeare ever did. Neither film really does it justice, but if you're looking for a movie version of "South Pacific," don't strain yourself as you reach for this 1958 original over the awful 2001 remake.

With the world a little shaky now, it's a real pleasure to be able to put on a DVD and take a trip down memory lane to 1958 when South Pacific was released in movie theaters. The Rogers and Hammerstein score sets the tone for this musical adaptation of the Broadway show that was based on Tales of the South Pacific" by James Mitchener.

The story is set on an island in the South Pacific during WW2. The Japanese are entrenched in a nearby island and are bombing American forces that go near, but life is sweet for the G.I.s at the naval base. Mitzi Gaynor, cast as a nurse, is beginning a romance with an older distinguished French planter played by Rossano Brazzi. John Kerr is a young lieutenant who comes to the island to convince the planter to risk his life to spy for the Americans. And Juanita hall is the older native woman who pushes her daughter, the lovely France Nuyen, at John Kerr. The music is excellent and the words of the songs really do move the story along.

The theme however, is more than a love story. It deals with racism and the tragedy of war too. And these themes are what held it all together for me. It's a great human statement surrounded by wonderful familiar melodies that I'm still humming this morning. I loved it. And I didn't even care that, with the exception of Rossano Brazzi and Ray Walston, whose role as a sailor who always has a scheme and adds some really funny comic relief to this tale of love and war, the acting in general was mediocre. Everyone else gave rather stilted performances, and Mitzi Gaynor might be pretty, but she can't quite show a wide range of emotion. Also, the songs were all dubbed and obviously so. But that was the way Hollywood did things in those days. It's also interesting to note what the standard for beauty was in 1958. With the exception of the dancers, it was youth alone and not workouts in the gym that shaped the actors' bodies. Narrow waists were in style for the women, but hips were allowed to flare naturally.

I loved South Pacific in spite of its few faults. It was great entertainment even though it didn't make me forget the prospect of war. If you've never seen this film, don't miss it. And if you've seen it before, it's certainly worth a revisit. Highly recommended.