The King and I

Rating:
Summary: I was terribly dissapointed in this movie.
Review: I saw this movie at the dollar theatre and Im glad i did not pay seven dollars for it. The orchastrations drowned out some of the singers. Maranda Richardson could not compare to Marni Nixons dubbing of Deborah Kerr. I dont remember any fire breathing dragons only in the Uncle tom sequence. I know yul Brynner died but he is irreplacable. The king wasnt very meanacing and one part i thought i was watching Around the world in 80 days. I kept looking for David Niven. I will go see the Jodie Foster one but how can you ever improve on the first two. I was dozing off and the kids were very restless in it I mean in the audience. I wont even tape this when it is on free tv. Two hours out of my life i wont get back.

Rating:
Summary: A Disney veteran introduces a new 'King'
Review: I truly enjoyed this movie. It is highly underrated and hopefully will be appreciated in years to come. Instead of going over plot details, I trust just about everyone is familiar with "The King and I," I'll instead go over the things that I enjoyed most about the film.

Director Richard Rich, who helmed Disney's The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron, helms a very Disney-worthy animated feature for another movie studio. The artwork is beautiful, very vibrant, but the animation is on par with alot of the Disney films from the 1980s, maybe. The characters are basically the same from the original musical, The King of Siam and Anna included. However, there is a new character named Master Little who is voiced by SNL funnyman Darrell Hammond. He's probably the funniest part of the movie. One detractor, is that I thought that the villian, The Kralahome, was a bit too much like Jafar from Disney's Aladdin in his attempt to manipulate various characters, the King included.

However, I think the number one reason I like it better than the 1956 version is because it is only a brief 90 minutes while the original tops out at a whopping 133 mins. Overall I enjoyed Warner's 'King,' even though it seems to drag at points, I will no doubt enjoy watching it for years to come.

Rating:
Summary: A Disney veteran introduces a new 'King'
Review: I truly enjoyed this movie. It is highly underrated and hopefully will be appreciated in years to come. Instead of going over plot details, I trust just about everyone is familiar with "The King and I," I'll instead go over the things that I enjoyed most about the film.

Director Richard Rich, who helmed Disney's The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron, helms a very Disney-worthy animated feature for another movie studio. The artwork is beautiful, very vibrant, but the animation is on par with alot of the Disney films from the 1980s, maybe. The characters are basically the same from the original musical, The King of Siam and Anna included. However, there is a new character named Master Little who is voiced by SNL funnyman Darrell Hammond. He's probably the funniest part of the movie. One detractor, is that I thought that the villian, The Kralahome, was a bit too much like Jafar from Disney's Aladdin in his attempt to manipulate various characters, the King included.

However, I think the number one reason I like it better than the 1956 version is because it is only a brief 90 minutes while the original tops out at a whopping 133 mins. Overall I enjoyed Warner's 'King,' even though it seems to drag at points, I will no doubt enjoy watching it for years to come.

Rating:
Summary: A lesson in remaking a old treasure into new trash.
Review: I was looking forward to taking my daughter to see the new version of "The King and I." I had watched the original with Yul Brenner many times as a child.

After the introduction of the King's assistant and his magical powers, my daughter was asking to leave the theatre. We stayed, hoping the film might improve.

This adaptation takes a delightful story and attempts to mold it today's audience with the addition of a sinister, powerful villian and a few cute animals.

The animation was an extreme disappointment - never surpassing the quality of recent Saturday morning cartoons.

The only strength of this film was the classic Rogers and Hammerstein collection of songs. Too bad even this could not save this film. The producers are hoping to introduce an old story to children with this new version. Do yourself a favor and spend your money on the original classic.

Rating:
Summary: A lesson in remaking a old treasure into new trash.
Review: I was looking forward to taking my daughter to see the new version of "The King and I." I had watched the original with Yul Brenner many times as a child.

After the introduction of the King's assistant and his magical powers, my daughter was asking to leave the theatre. We stayed, hoping the film might improve.

This adaptation takes a delightful story and attempts to mold it today's audience with the addition of a sinister, powerful villian and a few cute animals.

The animation was an extreme disappointment - never surpassing the quality of recent Saturday morning cartoons.

The only strength of this film was the classic Rogers and Hammerstein collection of songs. Too bad even this could not save this film. The producers are hoping to introduce an old story to children with this new version. Do yourself a favor and spend your money on the original classic.

Rating:
Summary: THIS VIDEO IS AN INSULT TO THE ORIGINAL
Review: I was looking forward to watcing this video. They cut out a lot of the really good scenes. The sped up all the good parts. THE Kralahome does not try to dethrone the king. This video deserves -5 stars. They cut out the Small House of Uncle Thomas Ballet. In all this is an insult to the years Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammestein spent on working on the King and I.

Rating:
Summary: The Worst Movie I have Ever seen!
Review: I was watching this with my sister while babysitting her.It is a watse of time and money. The animation was horrendious. Who does the voices? Totally fake! Oh and that cheesy Siamiese accent, what's up with that?!! I didn't even like the original so this was SUPER annoying!

Rating:
Summary: What Hollywood Usually Does to Classic Movies
Review: I watched about half of this travesty to see just how bad it could be. Needless to say, I was not disappointed. Disney dumbs down classic tales for good reason- to make darker stories more accessible to small children. Where is the reasoning behind this mess!! Nowhere in Rodgers and Hammerstein's classic is there a sappy monkey and elephant. There are no hot air balloons nor fire breathing dragons. What will be next - an animated Sound of Music (which I point out is quite frequently ridiculed for being too sweet)? If parents want to introduce the family to classic musical theatre why not start with the original? Kids are much more intelligent than we normally give them credit for and my five year old nephew is much more intelligent than this debacle.

Rating:
Summary: What Hollywood Usually Does to Classic Movies
Review: I watched about half of this travesty to see just how bad it could be. Needless to say, I was not disappointed. Disney dumbs down classic tales for good reason- to make darker stories more accessible to small children. Where is the reasoning behind this mess!! Nowhere in Rodgers and Hammerstein's classic is there a sappy monkey and elephant. There are no hot air balloons nor fire breathing dragons. What will be next - an animated Sound of Music (which I point out is quite frequently ridiculed for being too sweet)? If parents want to introduce the family to classic musical theatre why not start with the original? Kids are much more intelligent than we normally give them credit for and my five year old nephew is much more intelligent than this debacle.

Rating:
Summary: It was completly Different than the movie.
Review: If a child is seeing THE KING AND I for the first time, they will get a completly different feeling about what it was like. I played as Lady Thiang in the stage play, and I feel that she was thrown out of the whole show. They didn't even have her song. Lun Tha wasn't even in the movie and Princess Tuptim was in love with a completly different man. That is not right. The Kralahome was evil. He was supposed to have the role like Lady Thiang, not evil. At the end of the movie, the King didn't do what he was supposed to, and then the prince was supposed to become king. They had props that didn't even exsit then, and made it more fairy tale like then it should have been. If you make a movie that was taken from a very famous movie like this was, you should make it more like the movie. They also cut out some very good scenes that should have been in it. I relise that they have to make it understandable for young children, but it was really much to different.