The King and I

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.

Having two younger children, I try to take them to movies like this, sight or review unseen, when I can. They, like most kids, have seen the violence, heard the profanity, and fell into the lowest common denominator of most movies being made today. That's what makes this such a disappointment. I like to observe their reactions and their responses and not rain on their parades. But all they talked about when the thing was over was the guy who kept losing his teeth (remember that from the original Broadway musical?), and the mango throwing monkey. This is their memory of "The King and I." Both my kids have visited Thailand and I thought perhaps this would bring up some of the spirit of that world. Instead, we have this exploitative mess that throws out most of the cultural issues and the dramatic impact for a supernatural villain (where did he get these powers? The King didn't have any, other than incredible athleticism). And, of course, is there a movie around that doesn't have a Martial Arts component? I know that kickboxing is big in Thailand but.... I am generally very accepting of the things that are put out there for the kids, but this was terrible. A message to the producers: "Please, please, please, leave Rodgers and Hammerstein alone. I don't want to watch an interplanetary war version of "Oklahoma"!

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

I went to watch this cartoon because I'm Thai. I wanted to see how it is. And I found that it's too terrible for me. I mean I couldn't accept some lines in the story. It's not true for the magic. I don't want to see western children think that Thailand is a mysterious country which "Kla-holm" used magic to harm people. And we haven't had that kind of animal in the sea, look like a dragon, I'm really sure. All I say doesn't mean that I don't accept in the story which Anna wrote for long long time ago. The Western didn't know about our culture. And the story is just Anna's view point which no one knows that it's all true or something she made from her own idea. That's what I can accept. However, I can't believe the director and script writer of this globalization period do this with Thai culture. Magic and love story of our Prince Chulalongkorn with Tubtim are not true at all. Do you know that Thai people love and respect our royal family, especially Prince Chulalongkorn was our King Rama V who did many good things for Thailand? Do you feel ashamed to do like this? (I just wanna ask the director and script writer.) Thus, I think I can accept the classic one more than this cartoon. And I hope the film which Jo-yun Fat performes will be better. Please don't "play" with my history in the film. The director of the next film, at least, please do what Anna wrote. Or it will be better to do the research of Thai history.

And I think this cartoon isn't good. I don't have bias but I don't think the picture is really beautiful. Many cartoons are much better.

Hope you all understand my English.