IndigoDragoness 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.

tequila101 First off I want to say two things about this topic. One, I saw this in the cinemas with my family when I was little and I enjoyed it a lot. And secondly when I'm doing this review, I am not going to compare this film to the 1956 film because i have not seen that version.So after a long time, I decided, why not, let's give the king and I (1999) a try. In the first 20 minutes, I instantly turned off the film, finding it funny as hell but really thinking what the hell at the same time. The next day, I watched the other half which bored me to death. After seeing the whole film being much older now, I think of it in a totally different way. As a kid, I liked it. But now more grown up, I think this film was animated garbage and it was awful. Very rotten as well. It was so messy. And here's why: First, I think the story is far too simple and I wish they could have gone into great detail throughout the film. I also think that most of the characters are unbelievably stupid, annoying, laughable and dull in every scene. There definitely wasn't much going on with these characters that I just couldn't care about them after wards. The King is like an anti-action would be hero who continually blab-bas on repeating some of the same crap: "WHAT, WHAT, WHAT!". Seriously, and even the main villain was cheap. He was just there sneaking and running around trying to scheme his little plan. His objective was stupid as hell. There were a lot of stupid moments as well.Some of these stupid moments consist throughout but I think the most silliest was when this dragon tries to attack this woman, her boy, a monkey and a crew on their boat. The crew and all have no idea what to do until the mother and her boy start whistling. The dragon then disappears into smoke. Really dumb and quite laughable. I know this is a kid's cartoon but come on, there could have been a better way to kill that thing.The sing alongs also don't save it and the music throughout could have been so much more. It was merely the only decent part of the film but because of messed up characters, story, bad moments and plot gaps, the music is poorly contrasted with random scenes and it becomes a shamble which doesn't even get the film to it's full peak. And the thing which really bugged me throughout was the animation and change of scenes.For example in one scene, we see the main villain and this fat guy who is his assist are seen talking near a bridge. At first we see the main villain with his normal clothing. That being a red shirt and some shorts. And then quickly in the next shot, he is seen wearing his suit and then it cuts to another shot where a glass eye piece full off of his head and then another quick shot flies in quickly and we see that he hasn't even put it on. It's just there on him. There are many other poor animation tactics which go on about throughout this film, but I'm not going to go into it.The only two things I thought were done OK is these two moments with the main villain and the king. If you've seen this garbage where the villain is whipped on the bum by the panther at the end of the king and his discussion and the part with the villain telling the king about the so called teacher leading the kids outside the palace. They were the only parts in the entire film I thought that weren't done badly. Although that is my only positive notion for it, doesn't change my mind that I didn't like this film at all.I just don't believe it myself that I watched this in the cinemas when it came out, and I liked it. Now going back to it just recently, I suddenly think it's one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time. The other thing which was weird throughout was that I found this film hilariously dumb and stupid. I mean I just made fun of this film after the first ten minutes. And then the middle sunk lower and then the ending was predictable and went absolutely nowhere. I mean throughout nothing exciting happened either. It was just a very boring film.It's pure animated garbage which should be avoided.1.5/10

jcsmarchesi Don't even put the kiddies in front of the TV screen without them getting a headache from this movie for insulting their intelligence. The King and I is a classic musical that should never be remade, and not with the most offensive weapon in the industry: animal sidekicks and characters only plonked over for comic relief. The monkey is a stupid imitation of Abu that I wish I could batter to death, the fat guy, or Master Little, is a stereotypical retard who constantly loses his teeth (hahaha! that's so funny! NOT), and the panther and elephants, while cuter than the insufferable monkey and fat guy, really belong in another movie. Jungle Book, anyone? Oh yes, they had to make the prime minister evil, a Jafar knockoff. The animation, while better than Richie's later murdering of The Trumpet of the Swan, is bland, and the colours are so ugly your eyes stiffen. Basically, there's nothing good or great in this movie, avoid at all costs, even a rental.

parttimelover 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