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.
TheLittleSongbird
I have both versions on video, and I'll admit the 1956 version is much better. I had mixed feelings on this version, but I hated most of the plot changes. Many important bits that worked so well in the 1956 version were changed and replaced with hackneyed plot-holes. The saving grace is the songs, and the singing is passable. The best is Christianne Noll, and Barbara Streisand singing in the end credits was a treat. Back to the bad. The voice talents were OK, but there were a lot of dodgy accents. Miranda Richardson does well, and her character animation is good too. Martin Vidnovic was trying to replicate Yul Brynner, and in no way did he succeed. Adam Wylie has a false English accent, that was shown when he was singing, because his American accent was heard. Ian Richardson is a really good actor, but I was expecting more from him. He had lots of really good lines, but his delivery just felt a bit OTT. The worst character was Master Little, who was funny for only ten minutes, and then the occurring joke about teeth wore thin far too early. Don't get me started on the animals. they were cute at first, but they served no purpose at all to the plot, especially Moonshee. As for the animation, most of it was good, but why on earth did they animate a sea dragon and moving statues that were only there for a couple of seconds, I didn't get it! As for the romance between Tuptim and the Prince it was so unnecessary, and the romance between Anna and the king was painfully underdeveloped. And why did they change the ending? The ending in the 1956 version was so poignant, and this one was pointless. In conclusion, only watch it if you haven't seen the fantastic Yul Brynner version, otherwise you'll be disappointed. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Mightyzebra
Genre: Animated remake, slapstick and wit humour, Siam, 1800's.Actors: The actors who do the main characters are Miranda Richardson (Anna the teacher), Martin Vidnovic (the king), Adam Wylie (Louis) and Ian Richardson (the Kralahome).Main characters: Anna the teacher, the king, Louis and the Kralahome .What happens: A woman from England has come on a ship ALL the way to Siam in Asia. This woman, Anna, is a schoolteacher and has been sent to teach the king's children there. Someone has his eye on the throne, the Kralahome and his plan involves Anna, as well as the unsuspecting king
Message: You do not know everything.My thoughts: I have watched this twice since we bought it recently and I like it about as much as I did when I was younger (when we borrowed it). I think this is underrated. Yes, it does have some slapstick and yes, it is a little untrue to the original film (which I also like but can't remember very well) and the real occasion two hundred years ago, but it is a well-animated, pleasant film with good songs from the original film! My favourite of all the songs is "I Have Dreamed" or whatever it's called. In the film, I also like the characters and the relationships between them, especially the prince's and servant's as well as Anna's and the king's. :-) Recommended to: People who would like a remake slightly more harmless than the original, people who like remakes and for people who like cartoon musicals! Enjoy! :-) P.S I have just realised something weird. There are two cartoon musical remakes with a boy and a monkey, this and "The Mighty Kong". Do the two directors have a connection between them of liking monkeys..?
digitalzen-1
I saw Yul Brynner play the king about four months before he died. As long ago as that was, his version is etched in my mind. For that reason I may have approached this abomination with my mind already made up.That notwithstanding, the following: the animation was only passable. That has come to be the norm in cheap TV cartoons for five-year-olds, but a full-length feature based on a well-known story deserves better. Today's computer animation leaves no excuse for a two-dimensional, poorly-drawn screenplay.The voices are at odds with the drama -- either overplayed or under, rarely right on. Brynner could parody himself and get away with it. Vidnovic isn't up to the job. That said, his accent was enough like The King that it got me a couple of times. The singing is passable, but I swear I could hear the electronics occasionally.The liberties taken with the plot are unacceptable. They not only detract from and confuse the story line, they grate on the nerves. I suppose they thought only kids would watch this thing. In my own case, I wish they had been right.Rent the original. See what a real musical with real people is all about. Give this version a pass.
AD
