artzau wrote on IMDB:
The other comment here is that this movie has no plot. Well, there is, but
it's a thin one. But, consider the social context of this film, the
beginning of the 50s, a time when musicals were king and the world was still
optimistic. Things looked good: the horrible WW2 was over and the boys
were home; the economy was so-so but people were hopeful: many ex-GIs had
returned to school (a social feature which would bear fruits in the coming
years); Rosie the Riveter had put up her tools and was now in maternity
clothes waiting to socialize her daughters and make them aware that they
could earn money just like the men and not have to stand for being deprived
of the opportunity to do so; the Korean war was still a year away. Things
looked good. So, why not have a bit of Hollywood costume mind pablum about
a guy inheriting a small plantation in Tahiti, having a romance with
swimarina Esther Williams in dark-skinned make-up and all of that. No plot?
Sure, there is. It's just not very tension-fraught. Is that bad? To tell
the truth, I don't think folks went to see this film for extensive
intellectual challenges. It is full of memorable songs, lovely-to-look-at
moments and some nice shots of Tahiti. Rosie and her back-from-the-war GI
Joe likely held hands during the colorful dream sequences, unknowing that
their daughters and granddaughters would be horrified at the chauvinist late
40s dialogue. I missed this film as a kid and saw it on video a few years
ago. I loved Howard Keel and Esther Williams as a kid and would likely have
loved it more then. But still, there were moments, e.g., during the
confusing (and somewhat confused) dream sequence, when I could smile, losing
myself in the same way that thousands who go to Las Vegas and see shows at
the club do-- and it only cost me a few dollars! Check it out. I agree.
The plot is scarce but, doggone it, it's sure fun to see.
Written on IMDB a long time ago.