The King and I

We know the limitations of animation, or do we? Animation can be great, especially if it allows us to see something that we otherwise wouldn't, but this effort is a disaster. Just because Warner had the rights to reshape the story doesn't mean that it was wise to do so. I suggest either the original drama >Anna and the King<, a rather adult approach with much darkness that fits the original story, or the more accessible live-action musical >The King and I<, which has the benefits of Richard Rogers' musical score. It looks much like an attempt to capitalize upon either >Beauty and the Beast< or >Aladdin<, both infinitely better.

This animated film is a disaster from the start. It tries to make a fairy tale out of a story from the nineteenth century by adding sorcery and magical devices that mock the norms of nineteenth-century thought. Sorcery and the hyper-rational nineteenth century do not mix.

Some of the animated sets, I concede, are attractive. That said, the treatment inexcusably confuses Chinese and Thai culture. (To be sure, Thailand has a large Chinese diaspora, and it is quite influential, but not dominant).

Many of the characters are over the top, including the devious Prime minister who exploits a big-screen "magic mirror" and wears a Colonel Klink-like monocle and has a stereotypical stooge as his confederate. The animals are excessively cute and unrealistic, including the sterotypical 'mischievous monkey' and the King's cuddly pet panther(?), not to mention some of the most unrealistic elephants that we have ever seen and the snakes that the evil Prime Minister conjures out of vines. We've seen it all before, and this time it doesn't work.

Forget this one. Too many valid alternatives exist for this general story. If you want magic in an animated flick, then seek something in a more mystical time (such as >Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs<} or place (the beautiful-but-creepy world of >Spirited Away<.

Don't debase your video collection with this derivative rubbish. This movie's story is too dumb for adults and too dark for children.

Poor Yul must be spinning in his grave; this movie is terrible. The only two things that kept me watching was the panther, and curiousity on how they would handle the ending (I must admit the I do prefer this happier ending, though). Other than that it was shameful. When "Whistle a Happy Tune" came on during the sea serpent attack I could not believe the stupidity I was witnessing. Some scenes were word-for-word from the original, and you can tell that the guy who's the voice of the king was desperately trying to sound like Yul Brynner (and failed big time). Now I can understand that some little items needed to be changed for kids to be able to follow (there is hardly any mention of there being more than one royal wife, Tuptim is presented as a slave flower arranger rather than an unwilling wife-to-be). The animation was fair, but not top quality. I'm glad I made my mother rent this instead of buying it, she saved her money that way. My simplest advice for those who want their kids to see a version of "The King and I": show them Yul, they'll thank you when they're older.

"The King and I" was one of the films we had in VCD that I grew up with. I decided to watch this movie again since I had nothing else to do and I felt like taking a trip back down memory lane. Before watching this movie, I went on IMDb and did a quick search on it. When I saw the 3.3 rating, I was really surprised! That may be my biased self talking, but really! I was surprised since this was one of my favorite films when I was younger. But after rewatching it, I don't think this movie was THAT bad! Cut it some slack!

Most people are complaining on how they killed the original movie with this remake. I think this movie was targeted for children. Those who haven't seen the original version. In my opinion, I think this film stands well on its own, with its great songs. I found myself singing along with a few of the songs ('I Whistle A Happy Tune', 'Getting to Know You' and 'Shall We Dance') which I remember from my younger days.

Some of the characters may have been unnecessary like Master Little, the elephant and the monkey, but its their antics that keep the young ones entertained. This film certainly isn't the best one out there, but the songs are really great! The animation isn't that bad, either! I can't believe this movie got a 3.3 rating. Really.

Viewed on: April 14, 2011

Warner Brothers has seen fit to butcher this masterpiece with a new animated version that is thoroughly awful. The producers have attempted to bring the story down to a kid's level by eliminating key elements from the original and introducing new characters that would make Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein both turn over in their graves. The King no longer has a harem here, and his 106 children have been reduced to a mere 8. The Prime Minister has been transformed into an evil wizard who uses a magic gong in an attempt to overthrow the King, and he is aided by a bumbling fat midget who keeps having his teeth knocked out. Then there is the onslaught of cute animals including a monkey, an elephant and a panther that constantly save the King by hurling mangoes at the villains. Many of these new characters are directly stolen from Disney films, especially from `Aladdin.' If all this was not enough, we even get a scene where the King rides in a hot air balloon that is powered by a panther riding a bicycle mounted to a propeller. And just to make sure that we have a happy ending, absolutely NOBODY dies in this version. Admittedly, seeing this was an animated feature I was fully expecting some liberties to be taken, but I was not expecting a rewriting of the entire story.

The film's worst moments come during the musical scenes. Some of Rogers and Hammerstein's music manages to make it onto the screen but it is handled in such a way that it makes your stomach turn. For example, the movie begins with Anna singing `I Whistle a Happy Tune' while a sea monster attacks her. The King sings `A Puzzlement' while being attacked by giant statues that have suddenly come to life. Then there are the kids that sing `Getting to Know You' while being stalked by the fat midget. At the screening of this film I kept sinking deeper into my seat and saying, `Tell me this isn't happening!'

I have both versions on video, and I'll admit the 1956 version is much better. I had mixed feelings on this version, but I hated most of the plot changes. Many important bits that worked so well in the 1956 version were changed and replaced with hackneyed plot-holes. The saving grace is the songs, and the singing is passable. The best is Christianne Noll, and Barbara Streisand singing in the end credits was a treat. Back to the bad. The voice talents were OK, but there were a lot of dodgy accents. Miranda Richardson does well, and her character animation is good too. Martin Vidnovic was trying to replicate Yul Brynner, and in no way did he succeed. Adam Wylie has a false English accent, that was shown when he was singing, because his American accent was heard. Ian Richardson is a really good actor, but I was expecting more from him. He had lots of really good lines, but his delivery just felt a bit OTT. The worst character was Master Little, who was funny for only ten minutes, and then the occurring joke about teeth wore thin far too early. Don't get me started on the animals. they were cute at first, but they served no purpose at all to the plot, especially Moonshee. As for the animation, most of it was good, but why on earth did they animate a sea dragon and moving statues that were only there for a couple of seconds, I didn't get it! As for the romance between Tuptim and the Prince it was so unnecessary, and the romance between Anna and the king was painfully underdeveloped. And why did they change the ending? The ending in the 1956 version was so poignant, and this one was pointless. In conclusion, only watch it if you haven't seen the fantastic Yul Brynner version, otherwise you'll be disappointed. 5/10 Bethany Cox