Anna and the King

Lush, epic, sweeping, entrancing. It's all here. If there's any "justice" in Hollywood, this one should be Oscar bait for at least cinematography, costuming, musical score and the magnum-magnificent presence of some dude I never heard of before I saw AATK -- Chow Yun Fat. Now, I have been informed that he is the Coolest Actor in the World (according to L.A. Times). I can see this dark, cool elegance in his breathtaking performance as a real and fascinating historic figure, King Mongkut, who in actuality learned Latin, astronomy and memorized major parts of both Bible and Koran while a Buddhist monk. Contrary to the buffoonery of Yul Brynner's overblown portrayal, Chow opens for us an entirely new cultural door, brushing for the eager audience a portrait of a monarch of absolutely power who wields it so well that he is unafraid of gentleness, hugging his enchanting, on-screen children without reserve and finding himself mystifyingly in love with a foreign woman he cannot tame or bed because of the constraint of the times. The betrayal, revolution and barbarity of l9th century Thailand (Siam) become pale watercolor in comparison to the bold red and orange of unresolved love and religious and cultural interplay represented by Foster and Chow. We fear that more of these mesmerizing moments between the two lie on the editing room floor. However, Chow's sensitive face and body language reflect this inner evolution and bittersweet turmoil far better than does Jodie Foster's rather wooden performance accompanied by a troubling British accent. I respect Foster's talent immensely, though it shone through only intermittently, blossoming only when she softens to the King's patient (sometimes stormy) friendship. The indelible etching of the film comes during a non-speaking sequence involving the disposition of Tuptim and Balat which sub-plot likely was originally meant to be a subtle reflection of the untenable love affair between Anna and Mongkut. This is so well-edited and scored that it's going to be hard to forget. When the King kneels in agonized prayer before his talismanic Emerald Buddha, one is compelled to conclude that he is in anguish -- not only over what's happening to his concubine and his throne -- but the fact that his actions necessitated by politics will also probably forever separate him from his tea-tray-tossing Anna and all she believes in and has worked for in his country. Okay, so I cried in several places (something I nearly never do) -- the mark of a film which has accomplished its goal, i.e., the moving of hearts. I was fascinated with this movie. It made me read and research a part of the world I've generally ignored, and whole new palace gates have opened. Sumptuous and rich it is; and award-winning it should be, but the sun-star opulence of this new guy, Chow, is the stellar pin on that film curtain. Thanks, Mr. Tennant. And thank you, Mr. Chow.

This is a masterful piece of filmmaking that over romanticizes a true story to improve its entertainment value. However, the generous use of artistic license can be almost completely forgiven because the final product is so pleasing. Director Andy Tennant weaves together resplendent visual images, wonderfully warm lighting, magnificent set design, breathtaking locations and beautiful costumes to produce a banquet of sensory delight. I'm surprised this film didn't get more technical awards, since it was one of the most exhilarating filmmaking experiences I had all year.

The story was engaging, though admittedly the characters were overly idealized. This is especially true of King Mongkut, who was far more educated, dashing and genteel than it would have been reasonable to expect. Also, the romantic overtones between him and Anna were a bit much. But the way they were presented enhanced the overall effect so I have difficulty being too critical.

The story also had some constructive subtleties. In addition to the obvious storylines about the education of the children, the effect Anna was having on the King and the impending war, there was a deeper message. It illustrated the truism that exposure to different peoples and cultures can help us to grow in understanding not only of them, but of ourselves as well. For it was clear that Anna was as much changed by Siam and the King as he and the children were by her.

I was highly impressed with the performance turned in by Yun-Fat Chow. His English is much improved since my last viewing of him in ‘Replacement Killers' and ‘The Corruptor'. He imbued King Mongkut with dignity and strength without forsaking the human side. The camera just eats him up. It is easy to see why he has been the dominating force in eastern films for years.

Jodie Foster, on the other hand, was off her game. She was good as Anna, but frankly, we've come to expect more from her. Foster is a powerful actor who didn't seem quite sure what to do with this character. In some scenes she rose to the occasion and gave us the Anna we hoped for; resolute, defiant, opinionated and principled. At other times she seemed tentative and totally intimidated by the role, just limping through her lines. I give her high marks for her English accent, but her total performance just wasn't up to her capabilities.

This was one of the most entertaining and delightful films I've seen this year. Yes, liberties were taken but I am inclined to overlook them. It was beautifully filmed and directed; a feast for the senses. I rated it a 9/10. I highly recommend it.

The story is well known and has been told many times. Topping the film adaptations competition is the 1956 musical 'The King and I', among my favourite film musicals.

'Anna and the King' is around the same level as 1946's 'Anna and the King of Siam' in terms of rating, and is much better than the limp 1999 animated version of 'The King and I', which saw the musical get the butcher's treatment, and the execrable obscure low-budget animated version from Burbank Animation Studios.

It does go on a little longer than needed, consequently some parts do drag a little, while the subplot with the rebel general is on the implausible side and doesn't give the amount of tension it had potential to do.

On the other hand, 'Anna and the King' is stunning to look at with colourful, sumptuous costumes and the exquisite art direction rightfully garnering Oscar nominations, aided by cinematography of a sweeping beauty. George Fenton's music score is rousing, understated and uplifting, and the theme song a nice fit.

Further good things are a story that has a great mix of epic, poignant drama, dignified and sometimes tense romance and intriguing, if inaccurate, history. The conflicts are somewhat complicated initially but dealt with compellingly without making the film unfocused. The script is thought-provoking, and Andy Tennant (fresh from the previous year's delightful 'Ever After: A Cinderella Story', still a personal favourite) directs assuredly.

Jodie Foster, apart from occasional tentative performance, gives a performance of great dignity and authoritative strength with an immaculate accent. Chow-Yun Fat's performance as the King is nothing short of superb, a portrayal of many nuances and sweet-natured subtlety. All the cast do well, including a pre-'Harry Potter' Tom Felton.

On the whole, a very strong film with a few faults. 8/10 Bethany Cox

First of all, this movie was banned here in Thailand. Both the filming location and to play here. I have to find DVD to watch. O.K. this was not the fact in our history. Just the movie that follow from the book that contain artificial name, rank and misunderstanding of culture. However, director of this film is done the good job to not insult our king. King Mongut in this film present the great charactor of the leader, the highest father of our country. His role in the movie that played by Chao Yun Fat is acceptable for me. Next, the buildings, equipments and scenes are great. It's look like the same as here in Thailand. That's the neat job. However, the Thai pronounce sometimes are not good. Just few actors can pronounced well. Many times that I can not understand what they said in Thai and have to see the English subtitle. The storyline is O.K., not bad, sometimes boring, sometime there is interesting speech. The rebel at the ending of the movie, I think it's to help movie more interested than just to be normal drama movie. For Thai people, I think this movie is good and not ruin our king image.

This is a good movie, and it's very much worth seeing. Visually it is stunning-- the fake palace they built, and the geography is well worth the price. There are some complications that make it less than great, however. These problems might be inherent in the material-- adapting an actual English lady's actual diary. Should one poke fun at the colonializing 19th century British? The various "local" political rivals who evidently were more than willing to accept British trade and other "help" in exchange for fulfillment of personal ambitions? Or does one go entirely modern and politically correct, and pretend that the entire planet was a Berkeley coffee house just waiting for a chance to express neo-Marxist thought?

This movie tried really hard to appear "p.c." and historical at the same time. There were some glaring inconsistencies, however-- e.g., the British woman was evidently "shocked" by the death penalty being applied for what amounted to treason against the king, and yet in her own country, just 15 years before, the death penalty was routinely applied to shoplifters, petty thieves, vagrants, and anyone else the English nobility found inconvenient, annoying, or simply yucky.

The domestic montages were at times awkward and fakey. E.g., when the camera tried to build a sense of "Hey, we're getting along now!" by roaming around the palace grounds, showing the king, his kids, his old ladies and Anna all noticing birds and smiling at each other; noticing ducks and smiling at each other; noticing cutesy-poo antics of the young ones and smiling at each other. That was very stilted and phony feeling.

But this movie was much better than the critics mostly said. For example, for me, the relationship between the king and the teacher was actually very realistic, quite believable, and powerful. So maybe it's just that many professional critics don't like to see what real humans might do in a love situation with complications-- after all, they do go apoplectic whenever a movie wants you to feel something deep and real. So ignore them, and enjoy it for what it is-- a valiant and earnest effort to tell a complicated and difficult story. I gave it an "8."