Product Details

• Actors: Miranda Richardson, Christiane Noll, Martin Vidnovic, Ian Richardson, Darrell Hammond
• Directors: Richard Rich
• Format: Anamorphic, Animated, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: French (Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround), English (Dolby Digital 5.1)
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rating: G (General Audience)
• Studio: Warner Home Video
• DVD Release Date: July 6, 1999
• Run Time: 90 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (35 customer reviews)
• ASIN: 0790742586
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #7,862 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #15 in

  Movies & TV > Musicals & Performing Arts > Musicals > Rodgers & Hammerstein

• For more information about "The King and I" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
For no apparent reason, 1999 became the year of The King and I. The 1956 version with Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr received a glorious digital transfer on video, and Jodie Foster starred in a new, nonmusical version of this story of the King of Siam and the English schoolmistress hired to teach his children. The oddest rendition of the story is this animated version, complete with the famous Rodgers and Hammerstein musical numbers. Richard Rich's (The Swan Princess) animation is on par with most non-Disney features, but the film is chock full of dull villains, playful animals, and ridiculous action sequences. It's a good introduction into this culture for kids who will watch only animation, but the question remains, "Why was this made?" The 1956 version has aged very well, and is fabulous family entertainment. Still, the animated version is nearly an hour shorter, and for those who want hot-air balloon rescues, this would be the version to keep. --Doug Thomas

Product Description
One of the most celebrated Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals of all time is now a magically animated musical adventure certain to have the entire family "Whistling a Happy Tune!" Traveling to the exotic kingdom of Siam to instruct the Royal Children, English Schoolteacher Anna Leonowens soon discovers that her most difficult challenge is the stubborn, imperious King himself. But even as a wondrous friendship grows between Anna and the arrogant monarch, an evil sorcerer is conjuring up a plot to steal the throne! Sparkling with playful new characters kids will love, it's an enchantingly animated tale of royal romance, courtly intrigue and timeless musical favorites, including the timeless Rodgers and Hammerstein songs, "I Whistle a Happy Tune," "Getting to Know You," and "Shall We Dance?"

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars It's bad enough it's a remake, but..., May 15, 2004

By	TrezKu13 (Norfolk, VA) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

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.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Not that if you look at it through a kid's perspective, January 1, 2006

By	GreatMovieCriticForever - See all my reviews

It was definitely made for the kid's toon audience,
but I have to say I liked it for the most part.
The animation isn't too shabby, the musical
scores and scenes are good. I guess what takes
people the wrong way is the use of comedy,
and fantasy (the cat tearing up the statues
while the King sings) and some other issues
with characters.

Yes it's not the 1956 version with Yul, nothing
will top that but it's still not that bad as
far as remakes and different versions go.

I would recommend if you have kids and you want
to introduce to a fun film with references
to the original which blends in some Middle Eastern
culture and values.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Cute but Why?, January 13, 2007

By	G. Schneider "old movie buff" (VA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I bought this film on VHS many years ago, I guess shortly after it was released. THE KING AND I has always been my favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein musical, and I have probably a dozen recordings of the score. I also own the 1956 masterpiece film version in a couple of formats.

When I spotted this one, I added it to my library, but I must say I was shocked. My first question is: Who at the R&H Organization was out sick the day this project was green-lighted? I've been a musical director for many years and I know from experience that R&H are sticklers for adhering to the original script and score. Any alterations must be approved. So how did this thing happen?

It's almost totally devoid of any redeeming qualities. I must admit I think the idea of making Prince Chulalongkorn the secret lover of Tuptim was interesting, adding a layer of friction between him and the king. Perhaps Oscar might have approved of that, although he would have written it better, of course. But cute animals and curses and all that crap? Come on!

As one customer wrote, the idea of animating classic musicals is interesting...if done by the right talent. Obviously that talent is not evident here.