Rating: 
Summary: Animation good, story rushed
Review: Warner Brothers could do better. I wasn't expecting the same quality of Disney, but with the name of WB, they should be able to meet certain standards. The whole thing would have been better if the storyline had been better developed.
Rating: 
Summary: A stupid travesty of the original classic.
Review: What a mess! The idea to animate this musical play and musical film classic was retrograde to begin with as in "why?" but the Disney-ized result is pathetically bad. The king is a cipher - there is no tension between he and Anna and the main themes of tolerance/intolerance are brushed over. Chulalongkorn is no longer a boy but a young man, replacing Lun Tha as Tuptim's love interest (their love is no longer treason, it's simply an inconvenience). The Kralahome is now the embodiment of evil with a comical assistant. Only eight numbers are retained and most of these are throw-aways (SHALL I TELL YOU WHAT I THINK OF YOU? is a fragment- only the very beginning and end of the song are sung) and I do not consider Barbra Streisand singing a medley of songs not in the film over the end title to make much sense. Gone are: the President Lincoln/Elephant scene; the Small House of Uncle Thomas Ballet; Lun Tha; "snow" - the King does not die and the young lovers end happily in each other's arms. There is no pathos, no tension, no balance, nothing. Shame on Bert Fink and the R&H Organization for letting this happen: matching this to their recent ill-conceived filming of the team's CINDERELLA for an international cast makes it seem as if the Organization is dead set on destroying the reputation of the men it stands for. Avoid this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Whistle an Unhappy Tune....
Review: What started out as a promising idea, (An animated version of a classic broadway show) Turned out to be a woefully misguided flop. In trying to compete with disney, Warner Bros simply tried to imitate the disney style without the substance. Oh sure, the voices are good enough, but not memorable and the changes in the plot were unecessary and at times ridiculous. Had they simply animated one of the existing soundtracks to this classic musical (the broadway revivial with lou diamond phillips would have been great to use) the film as a whole would have turned out much better. Over all the film is rentable, but only barely. If you want to have your kids see "the King and I" stick with the Bryner/Kerr film version.
Rating:
Summary: What happened to the 1970's Yul Brynner TV Series???????
Review: Yes, of course, it is a nice idea to make a cartoon in order to make kids watch a well-known musical. The cartoon certainly had some nice attempts, but if you have to change so much of the original Musical story (not to speak of the actual books by Anna Leonowens!!) why not simply wait until your kids are old enough to watch "the real thing". The first impression of something you watch is very important, and I certainly would not want my kids to have this cartoon as their lasting impression of a very lovely musical. If you want to bring the subject closer to kids, why not show them the wonderful 1970's TV series starring Yul Brynner and Samantha Eggar (regretfully not available on video!!)?
Rating:
Summary: It's bad enough it's a remake, but...
Review: You know, there are some days when I watch a Miyazaki film, or I catch one of the old Looney Tunes from the 40's or 50's and I feel glad that I'm into animation. And then there are days when I see movies like this...and I wish I could go back in time and poke out Winsor McCay's eyes with his own ink pen.I seriously doubt the writers for this film ever saw the original "The King and I," which holds up to audiences even today. What they did watch apparently was "Aladdin." Don't believe me? Let's see...an evil court advisor and his comedic sidekick planning to take over the government, a pet cat in the royal palace, a young man lying about his identity to get the girl, a ruler who changes the marriage law at the end so the boy can get the girl, a romantic conflict of royalty versus peasantry, a boy and his pet monkey...no that's not like Aladdin at all. But what really bugs me about this film is the story. Why was so much changed? Why did they introduce the conflict of a villain? Why did they include that love story between the Burmese girl and the prince? The original love story between Anne and the King becomes irrelevent and poorly developed, and the movie gets lost in all it's unnecessary subplots. By the end you practically forget there was a love story between those two at all, and when they try to conclude it you're left unsatisfied. Also, I don't want to hear any one saying this film is good because of the music. Yes, the music is good, but the people who made the film didn't orchestrate it, Rogers and Hammerstein did. I could remake "The Sound of Music," leave in all the songs, and turn it into a porn movie. Does that mean it's a good film? Besides, the songs are often ruined by the sight gags they have going on at the same time. The "Getting to Know You" scene is especially true of this, as for the song's entire duration all we see are the stupid fights between the monkey and villain's sidekick over the singing. And I mean this is during the WHOLE SONG. Oh yeah, and what was up with all the animal sidekicks? There's like one for every character! First there's that monkey, then the cougar...and then an elephant? Did we really need the elephant? That was just overdoing it. And while we're talking about sidekicks...the villain's sidekick was very offensive. He's an Asian stereotype that I would expect in a 1930's film, but in this day and age, come on. Animating "The King and I" could have been neat, but not by these people. In fact, I hope these people never animate. Again. Ever.
| 
