If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Absolutely Brilliant!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I 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.

"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

People, this is a cartoon. The comment from the site got me looking further. Dear oh dear. What did they expect. Thank goodness some thought it OK. 1999? That late.. and I still thought Anna was based on Julie Andrews.. Miranda Richardson, OK. As we in the u.k. have had a recent ad on TV with the Julie Andrews version of Getting to Know You on it, something I didn't even know she had done, yes she has, who could mistake those sliding notes, on a soundtrack with Ben Kinglsey apparently. The company admitted to me in a return mail it got the clip from i-tunes? Good grief, an advertising agency uses an almost unknown clip from i-tunes. Well, I'm not even a third through the cartoon and its OK.. I never have expectations, in fact I'm usually scared to watch a sequel in case it doesn't live up, but.. whats not to like about THIS cartoon. Warner Brothers used to make a different version of.. another cartoon character, than the original, and one could always tell. Why cant I remember,Bugs? It was long ago. I should know, I'm a film buff. Someone said ideas from the stage show were copied, oh surprise? COME ON.. get those eyes/noses out of expectations gained from other formats... THIS IS a good cartoon.. has licence to do nearly anything they wanted it to. Maybe the same artist drew Anna as did Mary Poppins somewhere along the line. SO WHAT? Take it for what it is.

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