IMDb > The King and I (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The King and I
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The King and I More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 56 reviews in total 

31 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

A shameless butchering of a great classic

Author: Bruce Totten from Cleveland, Ohio
18 March 1999

Warner 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!'

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

pointless, silly, dumbed-down remake

Author: brower8 from United States
26 June 2004

We 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

Is this a joke?

Author: Quicksand from United States
24 March 1999

In 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Crayola Classics

Author: hunger9 from Delray Beach, FL
31 January 2002

It 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 19 people found the following review useful:


Author: anonymous from Australia
3 July 1999

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Awful adaptation of The King and I

Author: kill-the-boxtrolls from United States
16 November 2010

Here'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.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

What a Waste of Time and Money

Author: Hitchcoc from United States
25 March 1999

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"!

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:


Author: spats1 from New York, NY
2 September 2003

Easily 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:


Author: Amberly from TX, USA
5 April 1999

I 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Should have been done by Disney not some other studio trying to imitate Disney

Author: IndigoDragoness from United States
14 April 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history