irishm I went through a period in my life when I didn't appreciate Yul Brynner as a performer, and obviously that would not have been a good time to sample "The King and I", but I'm over it now and I really enjoyed his performance in this film. His singing voice isn't that great, but he brought so much more to the part that it doesn't really matter. I particularly liked the scene where his numerous children are coming out to meet Anna; he has some nice interactions with the smaller kids who make protocol errors, and I love the proud way he holds up two fingers when a set of twins put in an appearance... obviously a great achievement in his life.At one point, though, I thought it almost felt like there were "too many songs"... the audience is bounced from one to another pretty quickly for a while there, and none of them are exceptional, although they all serve to advance the plot (and the problem I have with some musicals is that the songs don't do much for the story-line). The good songs, however, are VERY good. And the classic "Shall We Dance", with Anna and the King dancing round and round the ballroom... just wow. That must have been gorgeous on a big theater screen.Definitely worth a viewing for classic film and classic musical fans. Not really dated as some 50's movies are, because it's a period piece and it was already dated when it was filmed.

gavin6942 A widow accepts a job as a live-in governess to the King of Siam's children.I don't know if I have ever seen this film before now, but so many scenes are iconic that it seems like I have despite being fairly certain I have not. For example, the play-within-a-film, "Uncle Tom's Cabin", is a very memorable scene, and very nicely done...I am left to wonder how much of this is accurate. The two main characters are real and this is the right time period. The running joke about his endless supply of children is also true. But was there a debate about slavery in Siam? And did the American Civil War or a English governess have anything to do with this?

lasttimeisaw This classic musical extravaganza stars a contrasting pair Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, a British widow Anna sails to Siam to be the governess of King Mongkut's many children and wives in the early 1860s, as the king is dedicative to modernise his country with western civilisation.This premise is grating enough to introduce the scenario completely based on westerners' wanton concoction and superior hubris to a less civilised society. As a successful adaptation of a sensational play, the film practically is a more lavish play in a giant set, it won 5 Oscars (Brynner won for BEST LEADING ACTOR) with 9 nominations altogether including the big five.The film goes extensively into the ostentation and extravagance of its exotic setting, which must have been marvellous for audience then, all that glittery, kitschy bells and whistles are visually winsome, most prominently is the enthralling choreography of a Thai version of UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. But the central story, an oriental king versus a dignified British lady, fabricates the drama which is too primitive and too on-the-nose, what's more disheartening, the film in shamelessly biased in the Thai culture, and not in an ironical way which one can laugh about it as a self-mocking ridicule, under today's world, it is untimely, irrelevant and politically incorrect (at least hiring some real Asians in the extras for Christ's sake!). Brynner's Oscar-winning performance is quite a novelty then, a star-making opportunity for him to introduce to audience with his unique handsomeness and virility, with a bald head although it is a reprise of his role in the original play, he insistently flaunts his sinewy bod to justify his masculinity, verbalises his lines with peculiar accent and extracts a lively combination of royal panache and congenial naiveté albeit his plot twist in the end is too brusque to accept.This is maybe Deborah Kerr's most memorable role and she is so fearlessly engaging in embodying all the virtues of a dignified woman with nobility, candidness kind-heartedness and self-respect, sadly both her and Brynner cannot rescue the entire film from becoming awfully outmoded after nearly 60 years.All its music numbers are standard show-tunes from a bygone era, some is bordering on cringe-worthy for my ear, simply not my cuppa. The story itself is a detritus made only for the world-view of 19th century, our concept of ethnology has thankfully evolved through one and a half centuries, so sometimes, something better being left in its own time-frame, otherwise heedful readjustment is indispensably needed to adopt the new mindset of a different generation, as much as I adore two leads' performances and all the efforts behind the production team, the film I really cannot endorse.

Leofwine_draca Nothing to dislike here. THE KING AND I is a sumptuous screen staging of a stage musical, replete with exotic locations and vivid song-and-dance numbers to keep the pace running along smoothly. It's a film that's bolstered by a fine pair of central performances from the perfectly-matched Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, two actors who bring empathy, wit and warmth to their parts as governess and king respectively.Brynner in particular is one of those actors who's so memorable that I'll watch a film based on his presence alone. He's in his element here as the vain, arrogant, fey, funny and deeply human King of Siam, his energy helping bring the movie to life. Kerr is the emotional heart who holds it all together.The songs are fine and the moments of theatre are particularly good; the restaging of UNCLE TOM'S CABIN is, in particular, the highlight of the movie for me. But it's just one highlight in a movie that's full of them. Yes, some of the supporting performances are weak and often the theatrical roots of the production are all too evident, but for the most part this is great stuff.