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"!
Add a Review
-
Hitchcoc25 March 1999
-
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
-
neenahhh14 April 2011"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 -
Bruce-8418 March 1999Warner 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!' -
brower826 June 2004We 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. -
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. -
hunger931 January 2002It has been said that a thousand monkeys working on a thousand typewriters would eventually come up with the script for Hamlet. If that's so, then this was obviously one of their earlier attempts. Why else would a monkey take center stage in this remake of Rodgers and Hammerstein's listless musical of the same name? And while they were using their hands to write the stumbling and obvious plotline (including an evil wizard (?!) with the typical maniacal laugh and bumbling sidekick), the monkeys were busy creating poorly drawn images with their feet. The best I can say about the animation is that it was probably done as paint-by-numbers using crayons, although monkeys are commonly known for drawing with their... wastes.
How do movies like this get made? Do people in hollywood actually think that children are dumb enough to watch this drivel? Just thinking about this flick makes me want to stab my brain with a q-tip, hopefully causing blissful amnesia, or maybe even a coma. Either way, the thought of this film would no longer haunt my worst nightmares. -
Quicksand24 March 1999In the past year I saw a parody of "Titanic" on Saturday Night Live's TV Funhouse, entitled "Titey," the joke being that Disney had turned the story into a big joke, with a singing ship, an evil ice berg, and sea animals that come together to rescue the poor sinking ship, helping it land safely in America.
The funny part is, if those writers gave the same treatment to "The King and I" the result would have been this movie. Except, in the SNL skit, they had Whoopi Goldberg voicing the iceberg. That was funny. Here, the best they could do for comedy was... Darrell Hammond, an SNL cast member.
Whoever made this movie doesn't have kids, nor much of a brain either. 1 out of 10, but only because it wouldn't let me type in a lower number. -
spats12 September 2003Easily the worst movie I've ever seen. Disastrous attempt to copy the Disney formula of adding magical bad guys and silly animal sidekicks -- TO A TRUE STORY? This story actually happened to an English teacher who went to Siam in the 1800's! And was made into a hit Broadway musical with the same Rodgers and Hammerstein songs. And they didn't just add ridiculous characters, but REWROTE major parts of history? Watch "King and I" starring Yul Brynner before watching this, and your jaw will drop from beginning to end. Worth watching, although it's not "so bad it's good", but because of a near perfect constant stream of over the top errors.
-
caribiner2312 April 1999My 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 -
amyontheend5 April 1999I was extremely disappointed in this cartoon. I was recently in the play, and the 'King's kids' from the play and I went to see it today. I knew that there were some changes, but these were ridiculous! Why have Tuptim fall in love with Chululongkorn and not Lung-Thai? Why have the Kralahome be a stupid, evil guy when he actually had some intelligence in the play and movie? Why have some guy who can play mind tricks -- what purpose in the movie does he have? Also, the ballet, one of the best parts, was left out. I don't see why they had to add a monkey that seemed to be taken from "Aladdin," a jaguar, and elephants, when the plot would have been so much better w/o them. I definitely don't think that the king should have lived at the end.....I don't care if its Disney or not. The real movie/play is much better. And as I said at the end, "We were SO much better!" It's true. Don't plan on seeing it if you are faithful to the real story.
-
Despite that this storyline is against the history origin and a slight different remake version of both musical and live-action 1956 film adaptations until this animated remake film received lots of bad reviews, as a critic, I just felt like praising this film's animation whether it is Disney-like or not. So if you are into animation and drawing body proportions and movements, at least this movie is enjoyable and I love this happy ending where nobody died and they turn this animated adaptation into a fairy tale with that kind of happy endings where Tuptim and the Prince lived happily ever after and got married and the King lived instead of dying of illness.
I love the reflection and animation effects and as well as the 3D-like hot air balloon which I thought it looks cel-shaded computer-like animation since it moves smoothly like it was 3D computer animated and looking cel-shaded.
I love all of the background settings details and they look very well rendered.
If you don't like this movie, don't unless if you are into happy endings and into animation and stuff. -
I thought this cartoon version was okay. I guess whoever produce it or put this together was trying to make this version to be as much appropriate for children viewers or as I would say "kiddy" as possible. If your children would have seen the 1956 version which I would definitely recommend later, I think that version would have seem inappropriate because it had a lot of adult themes and contents. What I see that I considered as the adult themes and contents in the 1956 version are
1.) Anna and The King (both portrayed by Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner) friendship turned into a complicated love affair. Plus, Tuptim cheating behind the King's back. TOO MUCH FOR CHILDREN!
2.) In the movie both Anna and The King talked about sexuality and other adult issues. Here's proof: The King explains how he is the "bee" and the women are his "blossoming flowers" and Anna told The King "to him, she is just another bowl of rice" (like every other woman) well it's a long story . This is definitely Rated R.
3.) The King has very many wives plus concubines and whole head of children (which explains you don't have to be a polygamous Mormon). For parents how would you explain that to your children " Ummm, The King likes to sleep around and ends up having a bunch of kids?". Huh.
4.) No matter how much I enjoy this movie, I always thought that Yul Brynner was such a hunk.... When I was little kid before they even thought about the cartoon version (flashbacks, again) and remembering how much I drooled over Brynner. They kinda put Brynner out as a sex object( Here's proof, Brynner was half naked throughout film, you what I mean). I had never seen so many women and girls who come up to me and tell me about their crushes and fantasies on Brynner in this film (it's not even funny). Would you want your young daughter to say " Oh momma, the guy who plays the king, he's hot!" and you shockingly answer back "What did you say, Linda?"(like I said flashbacks, again). I thought Tuptim's man LunTha was a cutie pie too. You don't want your kids to have these "weird" thoughts about the characters, it is too early to think that way. Let them be young and not to grow them up to soon.
5.) Even though I am not a guy but I do have friends who are males that do enjoy this movie and some of them do say that Deborah Kerr and Rita Moreno were very beautiful and elegant and other things I don't want to explain.
To see 1956 version I suggest you wait until your children hits 20 or 30 or probably 40, they can wait. I'm just kidding just as long as they are not eight or five (too early).
This is good for the kids and kids only I thought this production (1999 version aka cartoon version) was playing it safe. They did a good job by changing some of the plots.
Peanut Butter with Oreos are great, not! Drink Milk Last.
Part Time and too much to Love -
kill-the-boxtrolls16 November 2010Here's the story: When I was a toddler, I went over to my Grandfather's house and he had a copy of the old classic King and I. He set me off to watch it and I loved it through out. Well, in the presence, I watched this on STARZ and I didn't know what to do but sit through it and think about it. I had to rate it a 1/10 because of how awful this was. Look, I don't remember if the original King and I had this, but this was waay too frightening to look at for young viewers. There is a villain named whatshisname who puts on an evil scheme to distract the village with scary dragons, scary animals, a bloody-colored river, and there is a near death experience with the king. This movie is way to scary too look at with your kids. There is this woman who almost drowned at the part where she gets carried away in the river. I don't think this is nothing copied off of the original classic King and I but here are some subjects about it:
The animation was beautiful (almost like a Disney animation film). The script was flat. And the storyline was mostly predictable. The songs were forgettable. The characters are unfavorable.
Skip this floppy animated version and watch the original 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. -
Avwillfan8923 April 2020I'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. -
Without a doubt, the music of "The King & I" is as it was publicized...a classic. However, the musical sequences are about all the film can flaunt. The colors are brilliant and vibrant and the animation pushing the music along is, for the most part, quite creative. With the usage of dream sequences during "I Have Dreamed..." and colorful streamers in "Getting To Know You", the animation takes a turn for a simplistic, yet entertaining presentation. The advertised pieces are catchy, (although not as memorable as they used to be back in 1956 with Yul Brynner), but the glamorous "Shall We Dance" seems all too familiar to the Oscar-winning classic.
Without the music, the film is a drab, poorly-written, mangled remake. The characters provide no motive for several of their actions, especially the villain who produces a menacing sea serpent which vanishes as Anna, the heroine, "Whistle[s] A Happy Tune". The most devaluating element of the film, however, must be the villain's sidekick, an ignorant, tooth-losing sycophant. He barely made the children within the theater chuckle, but rather made the audience embarrassed to have participated in such a catastrophe. As in most animated features, the studios feel that there MUST be the addition of computer generated images to enhance the movie or to prove that they are as technologically advanced as the rest of the industry. CGI hardly adds to this movie, in fact, it stands out like a sore thumb. The ships and moving marble statues, all created by computers, are quite distracting and detract from the film's remaining dignity.
Overall, the film deserves a RATING OF 5 based on its attempt at animating the classic musical sequences, no matter how poor the rest of the film developed. It does, however, surpass the pathetic attempts of the recent DreamWork's "The Prince of Egypt" and 20th Century Fox's "Anastasia". -
amyontheend5 April 1999You can read from my first comment that it wasn't very positive. I'm still upset that the plot was changed so much. I read some of the other reviews, and I totally agree w/ most of them. Why make the most memorable songs have some stupid twist? Like in "Getting to Know You," they went outside, something NONE of the kids had ever done. During the song, they were able to go to village, have the ballet performed, go back to the castle, and walk through a rainstorm, for which they conveniently had umbrellas. Also, Chululongkorn seemed to be much older than what I expected. From my play, he was about 10 or 11. In this, the Prince seemed to be at least 18. I agree w/ Mr. Totten - Rogers and Hammerstein ARE turning over in their graves. While my younger friends from the show and I were laughing and having fun of finally being together again, we snarled and groaned at the changes. If the producers ever make another animation from R & H or another wonderful movie, I'm not going to see it. I think that the changes are way too wild and beyond reality to make it a well directed and performed cartoon. I agree that I give it a 1....no, a 2 because they at least kept in the most memorable songs.
-
IndigoDragoness14 April 2012I first saw this film on TV one late night, it seemed like a harmless, under-appreciated flick but I realized why it's under-appreciated, it's boring! At first, I thought I was just tired even dozing off during the climax but when I watched it with my mom on DVD through Netflix rental, I realized I was right, it is a very boring film. Even my mom dozed off during the climax. I know it's meant for kids and Disney knock-offs were a major fad in the 90's, but even they had some sort of entertaining potential, but with this, they barely put any effort into it. Ironically, the director did "The Fox and the Hound" and "The Black Cauldron".
So yeah, a major disappointment from this film, the animation doesn't have much detail, the story has no plot and the characters had the personality of sandpaper. No story structure, no character development, nothing. They butcher the song segments making them look pointless and stupid. The comedy relief was more annoying and less funny. Particularly the monkey named Moonshee whom is ripped off from, er I mean inspired by Abu, every other second, I wanted to kill Moonshee, he was that annoying. Also, the villain's assistant Master Little looks like Chien-Po's (Mulan) midget brother whom has the curse of "unfunny running gag" by getting his teeth knocked out. What was also stupid was replacing Lun Tha with an adult Chulalongkorn. the story of Tuptim and her lover was a really sad, tragic story and I see they tried to clean it up but they did a really bad job at it. However, the King's panther Rama was the only character I found likable.
Well, to wrap this up, this is a really boring film, like the summary says, it should have been adapted by the real Disney, not some other company trying to imitate Disney. -
MissSimonetta5 August 2014I am embarrassed to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid. I mainly enjoyed it for the relationship between the King and Anna, and I always thought they were a great couple and should have married. Now watching it, the people who made this film should have just not bothered.
This 1999 version of The King and I is abominable on almost every level. The animation is pretty good, but that's it. Several elements are borderline racist (some of this comes from the source material, but they added their own little doses of problematic elements too). There are downright stupid story choices (turning the villain into a goody wizard) and the way they watered down the dark elements of the story is truly silly. The less said about those awful animal sidekicks the better.
It tries so hard to compete with the Disney films of the time without possessing any respect for the audience. A waste of time; do not inflict this on yourself or your children. -
RosanaBotafogo18 July 2021Cute, exaggerated and musical gestures like all animation needs to be, the story itself pleases me more than the work, so much so that the exaggerations make me turn up my nose, however, because it is a childish animation, forgivable, the jokes work, the endearing characters , the King although rude and sexist, redeems himself and yields a good ending "happily ever after"...
-
SusieSalmonLikeTheFish21 February 2015This movie is certainly too sinister for kids, I remember it scaring me when I was about six years old. It has vines that turn into snakes, a scene with a sea dragon trying to tip a boat and eat the passengers, a verbally abusive king and inaccurate history. One scene in particular features a young man falling in love with a servant girl. The man's father orders the girl to be whipped to death in front of everyone. The King and I definitely isn't a family-friendly animated movie at all.
It's too stupid for any adults unfortunate enough to have to watch it. Full of cultural and racial stereotypes, disgustingly cute and unrealistic animals, lame singing and an array of unlikable characters, this is one movie you won't want to sit through with your kids, believe me. Anna is supposed to be a logical, brave schoolteacher from America (or England, Canada? I can't remember), but she ends up coming across as this annoyingly assertive dope. Her son is just a wimpy little dork dressed in weird stretch pants , sailor hat and blazer. The king, who doesn't seem to have a name, has exaggerated and bizarre anger issues. Master Little is a morbidly obsese, Buddha-esque guy with stereotypically slanted eyes and a weird voice. Most of the characters are flat, with no originality or personalities at all; they stick to their story roles but have no outside interests, nothing to make them memorable. Since the producers already tried turning the story into something out of a Disney movie or Scooby-Doo episode, they could at least try to make the characters interesting! My advice? Don't even bother with this, and don't subject your children to it. It's almost as bad as that stupid Ferngully movie and is probably one of the worst animated movies I've seen in some time. -
sierraionegarske22 August 2019I dont care if the movie got bad reviews! It was one of my favorites growing up and i still love it. I really love the songs to it and i still sing along with it. I seriously dont get all the hate about it. Its really funny and classic. I honestly wished they did more movies for this but sadly it wont happen. Im almost 30 and i still love
-
melodyahol8 March 2003The King and I is a cute movie. The songs are catchy and bring a sense of the original "King and I" to a cartoon. If you do not like musicals, then you will probably not like this musical cartoon. I loved all the old musicals, "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", etc. and I truly enjoyed this movie. My children absolutely adore it also. Very funny. Give it a fair chance and you will be a fan of it.
-
annaeliese26 April 2005Believe me. This film is one of the worst. You won't like it. Your kids won't like it. No one will ever like it.
The animation is shoddy, cheap and resembles that of a 70's Saturday morning show. The voice actors are terrible, the kid who Louis tries to put on an English accent, but fails terribly. Anna and the King is annoying too.
The movie starts when they are on the way to Siam, the the Kralahome is now an evil sorcerer with magic powers for evil and conjures up a serpent. The serpent isn't even scary, the animation ruins it. They also jump into song with stupid hand movements. They all whistle and the serpent is gone. Wow, I was drowsy by this time. Master Little is also an annoying, dental crazed thing that tries to be funny but just plainly doesn't.
They all arrive, the only good bit is when they show you the actually good castles. You see the king, with his friendly panther. Who is also plastically played and hardly has so personality.
Then is introduces the love between Tuptim and Prince Chululongkorn, which is all wrong!!! It tries to give a forbidden love feel to it, but all it gives is a teenage crush feel.
Don't get me started on those annoying animals! A monkey, panther and elephant. The monkey is terrible, you almost want to ring it's neck, the panther is the sly tame panther ( *cough*JungleBook*cough*) and that elephant Tusker, grr!!!
Then it goes through, I want my house faze. Which is really boring, throw in a few cheesy songs and thats really it. There is no real climax in this. Oh yeah, and a huge moody from Anna to the king.
Tuptim is thrown into a huge river to await her death, unfortunately the king has to save her. The balloon starts to burn and Prince Chululongkorn and Tuptim jump in the water. Why didn't the king, he just sat there inhaling toxic gases.
The balloon goes down and here comes the main character death, but then comes back to life part. Haven't we had enough!!! Everyone is happy and Anna gets her own house (surprise surprise). The Kralahome is captured and sentenced to poop scooping.
Overall, terrible film. Don't go near it, if you have to watch it, watch it on TV don't waste your money renting it or buying it. I give this 0/10.