The King and I

My kids (preschool and first grade) wanted to see this movie ever since the promos started running. I read all the comments here, and in spite of them, we went to see it.

The kids loved it. They were glued to the screen every second and talked about it for the rest of the day. In that regard, the movie reached its target.

I was a bit disappointed, but certainly not to the passionate degree I've seen here. I certainly was not expecting a line-for-line remake of the Brynner-Kerr film, nor a remake of any of the dozen or so live productions of the play that I've seen. This clearly was an attempt to reach a new audience, a late-1990s audience that's seen years of _Aladdin_, _The Little Mermaid_, _Pocahontas_ (oddly enough, all long-lived stories that were messed with at some level in the interest of making a movie about them) and I think they connected on that level.

The animation was average at best, and Quicktime-Movie-running-on-a-386-bad at worst. Perhaps I've been spoiled by Disney features or the wonderful Fleischer material of the 1930s.

The musical numbers were buried under visuals that didn't match-- I agree with the other posters who complained about the scene in which "Whistle a Happy Tune" was sung-- and some of the 1990s devices such as the cute animals and the martial arts demonstrations simply left me longing to see the original film again.

But that's me.

I'm renting the original movie for my kids to see which they prefer; this is more an experiment in learning what reaches them as opposed to the appalled father saying "Good Lord, what an abomination! Watch this instead!" After all, they prefer Froot Loops to cantaloupe, and we all know what's better for them. :-) What we can do is introduce them to quality and see if it takes.

If you are reading this before seeing the movie, take all the comments in these postings in the proper spirit; don't expect a remake of something that's too wonderful to be remade properly (so why would a studio even consider bothering with a line-by-line/scene-by-scene animated "mirror" version?) but don't expect something lower than horrible. It's actually quite entertaining.

My rating: 6

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.

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

It was undoubtedly an historic team-up. James G. Robinson's Morgan Creek Productions joining forces with classic TV's immortal holiday icons, Rankin/Bass Productions, to fulfill a lifelong dream of R/B's co-founder, Arthur Rankin, Jr.:

that of bringing one of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II's most legendary Broadway hits to the screen --- as an animated motion picture. Alas! The result turned out to be "The King and I"; and in its 1999 version, produced at Richard Rich's Rich Animation Studios in partnership with Nest Entertainment --- the creative team behind "The Swan Princess" --- there were quite serious flaws, the most important of which was unquestionably the simple truth that "The King and I" has, almost from the moment 20th Century-Fox's movie version of the Rodgers & Hammerstein legend was first released, pretty much been doomed to remain anathema among the people of Thailand, for whom the King of Siam is an historic figure worthy of being held sacrosanct. What, then, went wrong? Well, first things first, I believe that moviegoers went into this animated "King and I" expecting the awesome, unique, one-of-a-kind animation which for nearly forty years was at the heart of every Rankin/Bass Production. What the audience got instead, sadly, was a farmed-out, overly stereotypical, 90-minute exercise in badly done children's animation. Moreover, R/B's other co-founder had no involvement in this production. A Rankin/Bass Production without Jules Bass? Unthinkable! Even worse, Morgan Creek's recent filmography since "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," its biggest blockbuster ever (and, one would surmise, its ONLY such blockbuster), has spawned a series of less than incredible titles --- making one question why Warner Bros. continues to distribute Morgan Creek's films at all. But I have had access to the real story behind this failed 'toon; and, truth be told, it is at best a cautionary tale, and at worst a lesson in how not to bring a Broadway soundtrack to life on the screen. It seems to me that The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, by arrangement with whom this film had been prepared, had wanted to support Mr. Rankin's dream; once the animated "King and I" flopped, unfortunately, it was clear that they could not support such a concept for any reason. Subsequent plans to animate other R & H stage legends --- "Oklahoma!" and "The Sound of Music" among them --- were ultimately scrapped, leaving Arthur Rankin, Jr.'s dream in tatters. To me, that's a shame --- because here was a unique opportunity to introduce younger audiences to the epic power and beauty that only a live stage show can provide.... an opportunity squandered through the addition of overly-cliched, racially stereotypical characters and Saturday morning-esque dialogue. I would guess, in the end, that the moral of this story is: If you can dream it, don't always necessarily do it.... because you never know what kind of film-related traps you may stumble into in the end.

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.