Il re ed io

I've never seen the original musical. But it appears the filmmakers of this atrocious animated adaptation of the stage musical felt that children would not be entertained by songs unless there were animals, dragons and stereotypical villainous asian sidekicks getting into trouble in the background.

The songs, while clearly timeless, have terrible timing on the way they are presented. Situations with characters don't make sense - the villain is awful and the charm of the music is siphoned out of it like a whirlwind.

Don't bother.

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

"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

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.

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"!