User reviews

First of all, this movie was banned here in Thailand. Both the filming location and to play here. I have to find DVD to watch. O.K. this was not the fact in our history. Just the movie that follow from the book that contain artificial name, rank and misunderstanding of culture. However, director of this film is done the good job to not insult our king. King Mongut in this film present the great charactor of the leader, the highest father of our country. His role in the movie that played by Chao Yun Fat is acceptable for me. Next, the buildings, equipments and scenes are great. It's look like the same as here in Thailand. That's the neat job. However, the Thai pronounce sometimes are not good. Just few actors can pronounced well. Many times that I can not understand what they said in Thai and have to see the English subtitle. The storyline is O.K., not bad, sometimes boring, sometime there is interesting speech. The rebel at the ending of the movie, I think it's to help movie more interested than just to be normal drama movie. For Thai people, I think this movie is good and not ruin our king image.

The story is well known and has been told many times. Topping the film adaptations competition is the 1956 musical 'The King and I', among my favourite film musicals.

'Anna and the King' is around the same level as 1946's 'Anna and the King of Siam' in terms of rating, and is much better than the limp 1999 animated version of 'The King and I', which saw the musical get the butcher's treatment, and the execrable obscure low-budget animated version from Burbank Animation Studios.

It does go on a little longer than needed, consequently some parts do drag a little, while the subplot with the rebel general is on the implausible side and doesn't give the amount of tension it had potential to do.

On the other hand, 'Anna and the King' is stunning to look at with colourful, sumptuous costumes and the exquisite art direction rightfully garnering Oscar nominations, aided by cinematography of a sweeping beauty. George Fenton's music score is rousing, understated and uplifting, and the theme song a nice fit.

Further good things are a story that has a great mix of epic, poignant drama, dignified and sometimes tense romance and intriguing, if inaccurate, history. The conflicts are somewhat complicated initially but dealt with compellingly without making the film unfocused. The script is thought-provoking, and Andy Tennant (fresh from the previous year's delightful 'Ever After: A Cinderella Story', still a personal favourite) directs assuredly.

Jodie Foster, apart from occasional tentative performance, gives a performance of great dignity and authoritative strength with an immaculate accent. Chow-Yun Fat's performance as the King is nothing short of superb, a portrayal of many nuances and sweet-natured subtlety. All the cast do well, including a pre-'Harry Potter' Tom Felton.

On the whole, a very strong film with a few faults. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this in the theater way back in 99' and really was touched by this, in a way I had no idea that I would be. This was well made and visually wondrous, the two(Chow and Jody) were almost magical in their roles I was amazed at how incredibly well they brought the characters in a remake to be more beautiful than the original. Even though they didn't have the chemistry of other on screen romance-couples, it still makes you feel things about the couple and that time in history. I am not used to seeing Chow in this kind of character either.

My heart was definitely taken by this wonderful film, what a surprise! The director performed a brilliant job in creating this modern day work of excellence. Not many can stand the test of time effectively, like I think this is.

Bravo I recommend this to all. It is a lasting family feature that I believe will endure for a long time. (*****)

Lush, epic, sweeping, entrancing. It's all here. If there's any "justice" in Hollywood, this one should be Oscar bait for at least cinematography, costuming, musical score and the magnum-magnificent presence of some dude I never heard of before I saw AATK -- Chow Yun Fat. Now, I have been informed that he is the Coolest Actor in the World (according to L.A. Times). I can see this dark, cool elegance in his breathtaking performance as a real and fascinating historic figure, King Mongkut, who in actuality learned Latin, astronomy and memorized major parts of both Bible and Koran while a Buddhist monk. Contrary to the buffoonery of Yul Brynner's overblown portrayal, Chow opens for us an entirely new cultural door, brushing for the eager audience a portrait of a monarch of absolutely power who wields it so well that he is unafraid of gentleness, hugging his enchanting, on-screen children without reserve and finding himself mystifyingly in love with a foreign woman he cannot tame or bed because of the constraint of the times. The betrayal, revolution and barbarity of l9th century Thailand (Siam) become pale watercolor in comparison to the bold red and orange of unresolved love and religious and cultural interplay represented by Foster and Chow. We fear that more of these mesmerizing moments between the two lie on the editing room floor. However, Chow's sensitive face and body language reflect this inner evolution and bittersweet turmoil far better than does Jodie Foster's rather wooden performance accompanied by a troubling British accent. I respect Foster's talent immensely, though it shone through only intermittently, blossoming only when she softens to the King's patient (sometimes stormy) friendship. The indelible etching of the film comes during a non-speaking sequence involving the disposition of Tuptim and Balat which sub-plot likely was originally meant to be a subtle reflection of the untenable love affair between Anna and Mongkut. This is so well-edited and scored that it's going to be hard to forget. When the King kneels in agonized prayer before his talismanic Emerald Buddha, one is compelled to conclude that he is in anguish -- not only over what's happening to his concubine and his throne -- but the fact that his actions necessitated by politics will also probably forever separate him from his tea-tray-tossing Anna and all she believes in and has worked for in his country. Okay, so I cried in several places (something I nearly never do) -- the mark of a film which has accomplished its goal, i.e., the moving of hearts. I was fascinated with this movie. It made me read and research a part of the world I've generally ignored, and whole new palace gates have opened. Sumptuous and rich it is; and award-winning it should be, but the sun-star opulence of this new guy, Chow, is the stellar pin on that film curtain. Thanks, Mr. Tennant. And thank you, Mr. Chow.

It's 1862. Anna Leonowens (Jodie Foster) is an English widow school teacher who travels to Siam with her son Louis (Tom Felton). She is to teach English to the children of King Mongkut (Chow Yun-Fat). Mongkut is trying to maintain his country's independence while modernizing amid colonial pressures. He faces deceit from within and a force from Burma. She faces internal palace politics and cultural differences.

This is beautifully shot. The acting is mostly fine. Jodie is a bit too hard. Chow Yun-Fat is bemused. They have little chemistry together. The movie is a bit overly long with a few too many side stories. It needs to decide to concentrate on the romance or the military intrigue. The movie seems to want it all and struggles because of it.

This is a masterful piece of filmmaking that over romanticizes a true story to improve its entertainment value. However, the generous use of artistic license can be almost completely forgiven because the final product is so pleasing. Director Andy Tennant weaves together resplendent visual images, wonderfully warm lighting, magnificent set design, breathtaking locations and beautiful costumes to produce a banquet of sensory delight. I'm surprised this film didn't get more technical awards, since it was one of the most exhilarating filmmaking experiences I had all year.

The story was engaging, though admittedly the characters were overly idealized. This is especially true of King Mongkut, who was far more educated, dashing and genteel than it would have been reasonable to expect. Also, the romantic overtones between him and Anna were a bit much. But the way they were presented enhanced the overall effect so I have difficulty being too critical.

The story also had some constructive subtleties. In addition to the obvious storylines about the education of the children, the effect Anna was having on the King and the impending war, there was a deeper message. It illustrated the truism that exposure to different peoples and cultures can help us to grow in understanding not only of them, but of ourselves as well. For it was clear that Anna was as much changed by Siam and the King as he and the children were by her.

I was highly impressed with the performance turned in by Yun-Fat Chow. His English is much improved since my last viewing of him in ‘Replacement Killers' and ‘The Corruptor'. He imbued King Mongkut with dignity and strength without forsaking the human side. The camera just eats him up. It is easy to see why he has been the dominating force in eastern films for years.

Jodie Foster, on the other hand, was off her game. She was good as Anna, but frankly, we've come to expect more from her. Foster is a powerful actor who didn't seem quite sure what to do with this character. In some scenes she rose to the occasion and gave us the Anna we hoped for; resolute, defiant, opinionated and principled. At other times she seemed tentative and totally intimidated by the role, just limping through her lines. I give her high marks for her English accent, but her total performance just wasn't up to her capabilities.

This was one of the most entertaining and delightful films I've seen this year. Yes, liberties were taken but I am inclined to overlook them. It was beautifully filmed and directed; a feast for the senses. I rated it a 9/10. I highly recommend it.

I rented this flick on VHS just for something for my wife and myself to do on a rainy day and it wasn't a bad film. This was a compelling true (yet slightly tainted by Hollywood) account of Anna Leonowens as a teacher that tutors the children of the King of Siam.

It was a romantic movie that made the viewer have the same emotions as those that played in it. The movie takes the viewer through the new life of the culture shocked Anna in the land of Siam. Anna, along with her son Louis (Tom Felton), goes through extremes of joy, sadness, and anger as they learn the ways of Siam. Anna also deals with the death of her husband and how his memory and likeness is seen through the King.

Meanwhile the British act innocently while behind the King they assist the Burmese in the on slot of attacks of the Siamese. This movie is unlike any other I have viewed so I can't compare it to any. There is plenty of action, tribulation, and romance so it is good for guys or gals.

The problem wasn't acting or Cinematography. The issue was a lack of editing, pacing & drama.

I saw a trailer for this film a few months before the Australian opening. Originally it was the lush cinematography that caught my eye. I assumed it would be a re-make either of the original 1946 movie or the better known Rodgers and Hammerstein musical of 1956.

In actual fact, the movie is neither a re-make of these previous FOX efforts, but rather an adaption of Anna Leonowens' own memoirs of the time she spent in Siam.

Jodie Foster gave a fascinating, beautiful performance as Anna. I found her portrayal of the character interesting, as it was far different from Deborah Kerr's interpretation. Yul Brynner left his mark on the King in both stage and film versions of "The King and I". However, Chow Yun Fat in a different role is excellent. I feel they are both up with a chance for an oscar nomination.

The film is a fine example of movie making. In addition to the supporting cast, the costumes and art decoration were of an excellent standard. Although the film was shot in Malaysia and not Thailand, I only suspected the film was not shot there because of all versions of the story being banned there. Despite the fact I have been to some of the Malaysian locations, I hardly noticed it.

Skeptical in my viewing of this movie because of my fondness for "The King and I", "Anna and the King" has forever shattered my illusions of the story. No longer can I picture the children swaying to the strains of "Getting to Know You". However, I was greatly surprised by this movie. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Rating: 10/10

This is a classic tale of "outsider goes to a strange foreign country and makes a difference". I originally had to watch this as part of a college assignment but found myself actually enjoying the movie a lot more than I thought I would. It is roughly 2 1/2 hours long, which is fairly common for historical movies of this type. It is well acted and the costumes and set design are amazing. Foster is perfect as always and even though I like Chow-Yun Fat I had never seen him do anything amazing before this. He is very good in this film however and deserves to be given appropriate credit. There is a bit of graphic violence which may be a bit much for the younger audience. Other than that, I recommend this to anyone liking epic historical films.

Another film added to my Disney Plus schedule by the arrival of the 'Star' channel, "Anna and the King" is a lavish adaptation of the debatably accurate diaries of Anna Leonowens that had previously been turned into the successful musical "The King and I".

An English Governess and Teacher, Anna (Jodie Foster), heads to Thailand to teach the many children of the wives and consorts of King Mongkut (Yun-Fat Chow). As she struggles with the cultural differences between Siam, as was, and home, she begins a chaste mutual admiration with the King. But Siam and the royal family in particular, are under attack from brutal soldiers looking for a regime change.

There are some bits to admire about the film. The performances are strong, from all the cast, and it's really a sumptuous production. Yun-Fat Chow really went through a spell as a Hollywood darling, and he earns it here with a stern, but magnetic performance. You can see the $92 Million-dollar budget in the set designs and scale of the film and the scenery of Malaysia looks really appealing. (Thailand refused to allow filming there due to its inaccuracies).

But it's long, very long, and doesn't do a good enough job of layering the stories together. There's three main stories; Anna's arrival and acclimatisation to court, the forbidden love affair between one of the Kings consorts Tuptim (Bai Ling) and Khun Phra Balat (Sean Ghazi) and the attacks on the country by troop armies reported to be from Burma. They don't really fit together particularly well and it feels like one of them (probably the forbidden love affair story) should perhaps have been lost completely with more time explaining the effects the 'Burmese' attacks were having.

Nice to look at, but too long and a bit dull.

This is a good movie, and it's very much worth seeing. Visually it is stunning-- the fake palace they built, and the geography is well worth the price. There are some complications that make it less than great, however. These problems might be inherent in the material-- adapting an actual English lady's actual diary. Should one poke fun at the colonializing 19th century British? The various "local" political rivals who evidently were more than willing to accept British trade and other "help" in exchange for fulfillment of personal ambitions? Or does one go entirely modern and politically correct, and pretend that the entire planet was a Berkeley coffee house just waiting for a chance to express neo-Marxist thought?

This movie tried really hard to appear "p.c." and historical at the same time. There were some glaring inconsistencies, however-- e.g., the British woman was evidently "shocked" by the death penalty being applied for what amounted to treason against the king, and yet in her own country, just 15 years before, the death penalty was routinely applied to shoplifters, petty thieves, vagrants, and anyone else the English nobility found inconvenient, annoying, or simply yucky.

The domestic montages were at times awkward and fakey. E.g., when the camera tried to build a sense of "Hey, we're getting along now!" by roaming around the palace grounds, showing the king, his kids, his old ladies and Anna all noticing birds and smiling at each other; noticing ducks and smiling at each other; noticing cutesy-poo antics of the young ones and smiling at each other. That was very stilted and phony feeling.

But this movie was much better than the critics mostly said. For example, for me, the relationship between the king and the teacher was actually very realistic, quite believable, and powerful. So maybe it's just that many professional critics don't like to see what real humans might do in a love situation with complications-- after all, they do go apoplectic whenever a movie wants you to feel something deep and real. So ignore them, and enjoy it for what it is-- a valiant and earnest effort to tell a complicated and difficult story. I gave it an "8."

This is a beautiful looking movie with scenery to spare. The acting was just as beautiful as the scenery. Chow Yun Fat made a regal performance, and Jodie Foster couldn't be found in hers. However, like all epics and epic wannabes, this one has one too many subplots which drags on the running time by a good twenty minutes. Still, there is a lot to recommend. Especially the photography by Caleb B.

The main problem I have with this movie is that it is presented as a factual representation based on the "true" memoirs of Anna Leonowens. The truth is that her books were largely fabricated and her own role in Siamese politics ridiculously enhanced. You will read that this movie is banned in Thailand, which is true....as ALL versions of this story are banned in Thailand as "politically incorrect" Western culture ethno-centricity. However, if you take the story as a legend (which is what it really is) it makes a fairly interesting movie that is visually quite interesting. If you like "exotic location" films, you will probably enjoy this one......just don't go home thinking you know anything at all about the history of Thailand. I rate this a 6.

This movie sounded like it would be a guaranteed bore and I was totally wrong! Yes, it's the same story as the famous '50s musical "The King and I" - but it is great in it's own right.

Basically, the story is inspired by the true story of a lady who became school teacher to the children of King Mongkut in 1860s Siam (known now as Thailand). It starts with her arrival to the palace and follows her time there.

Three reasons why this movie really succeeds: Great acting by Yun-Fat Chow (absolutely fantastic as the king) and Jodie Foster (the teacher), a great story with interesting events, and really nice visuals.

The biggest difficultly will be actually getting motivated to watch this movie because it may sound a bit simplistic and "family oriented". I really recommend ignoring any such thoughts and checking it out - once you start, it will be hard to stop. Just about everyone can enjoy this film.

This is an entertaining quasi-romantic drama that centres upon the relationship between an English woman – Welsh, actually – who taught English language to the children of King Mongkut of Siam (today, Thailand) in the 1860s.

As cinematography and narrative, it works well: very professionally staged, filmed and acted by the production and acting crew. Although nominated for many awards, it didn't win one, however. That should not deter you from enjoying the acting prowess of Chow Yun-Fat as the King and Jodie Foster as Anna Leonowens.

That is, if you like costume and historical dramas, then you'd probably find this film to be quiet acceptable. I did, and so did my daughter of thirteen.

The story, as depicted, however, is simply Hollywood: Anna certainly taught the King's children for a few years; but, beyond that bald fact, all else in this story has very little to do with the true facts about Anna Leonowens. Should that matter? Yes, I suppose it does, conceptually. Does it matter, in this case? Well, that depends upon your point of view.

Unhappily, as you know, Hollywood has a habit of mangling history to serve its needs and ends. With a story such as this, perhaps it's not such a bad thing if certain aspects are modified to suit the drama or the romance of that period in British and Siamese history? Indeed, when watching any historical piece of filming, it's better always to see it just as entertainment – then check out the facts for yourself, if you want to know the "truth".

On that basis, it's a film worth seeing, in my opinion. Having seen The King and I (1956) with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, I was intrigued to finally get to see this 1999 version. Both are good entertainment. Both have very little to do with truth. Ignore all that – just enjoy a good performance, great drama, stunning sets and scenery, light comedy at times and an altogether exciting two hours or so.

This is the second film of the year (the other being "The Green Mile") that I have seen that I believe will recieve Oscar nominations in several categories, of which, best film, best male and femal actor and best cinematography will be definitely considered.

"Anna and the King" is an epic film about a British woman who accepts an offer to go to Siam (Thailand) to teach western education to the King of Siam's 58 children. Upon reaching Siam, Ms. Leonowens (Jodie Foster) is made to find her way to the King's palace by herself and subsequently made to wait weeks before she is allowed to meet him. Coming from a British background she is appalled by this treatment and decides to take matters into her own hands by bursting into the King's court, breaking every protocol on the way, and boldly confronting King Mongkut (Chow Yun-Fat) about her situation. This obviously does not sit well with the King but at the same time he is intrigued by this woman's boldness and so the story begins about cultural education (both British and Siamese) and a blossoming romance that has you yearning for a happy ending.

Foster plays Anna Leonowens very well and at times makes you hate her for her narrow minded view of the world as she portrays a woman who truely believes that "British teachings are the ways of the world." Her comments about British rule and colonization makes you cringe at times as she comes across as this arrogant, cold woman who believes that she is in Siam to bring culture and wisdom to a backwards country. Foster manages to portray every aspect of this character flawlessly and takes the audience for an emotional rollercoaster from, hate to love to compassion and every emotion in between.

The most notable difference in character development is the portrayal of King Mongkut. Chow Yun-Fat brings a quiet strength and sophistication that was never present in Yul Brynner's portrayal of the King. In this film we are shown a very intelligent man that understands more than he lets on. In fact, he seems to lead Ms. Leonowens around without her really knowing it and in some cases teaches her lessons about the world and how it really is. As the saying goes, "actions speak louder than words" and this is definitely the case for King Mongkut. Fat does not have as many lines as Foster does but he is in as many scenes and in most cases commands more of a presence.

The rest of the cast was excellent as well and there were very few slow points in the film. The colors used were very vibrant and creates a feel of exoticness. As well, the cinematography was incredible. Sweeping shots of the landscape showing the green carpets of the land and the incredible shots of the elaborate palace create an atmosphere of an epic film. Subtitles are used quite a bit but it only adds to the authenticity of the film.

The one thing that I was disappointed in was the fact this movie was based on Ms. Leonowens' diary which may be subject to biased occurances of certain situations or historical inaccuracies.

Overall though, I was thoroughly impressed and entertained with this film. Although Jodie Foster is the top billing name, this film definitely belongs to Chow Yun-Fat and it would be ashame not to see him get an oscar consideration for his performance. He is an accomplished international actor and it seems that Hollywood has finally discovered that. My recommendation, go see this film. You will not be disappointed.

A

A sincere modern remake of the classic King and I as noted above.

Neither Jodie Foster nor Chow Yun Fat succeed in sinking their teeth into their roles like Yul Bryner and Deborah Kerr.

Probably good for those who do not have patience for musicals Otherwise ..... stick with the classic!!!

Even with the striking beauty of the set designs I found this film boring. It was also hard to wrap my head around the fact that Chow Yun-Fat was playing a character who was approaching his 60s.

Going in I had expected a solid performance by Jodie Foster and some nicely photographed scenes; what I got was much more. Chow Yun-Fat commands the viewers' attention whenever he is on the screen, fairly radiating a regal and aloof presence. There is a palpable chemistry between Jodie and Chow, something not seen in the actresses films since she squared off with Anthony Hopkins' Lecter. The script is solid and generally well-paced. Keen attention is paid to the dialog and interplay between the principals and the secondary characters, too. That they didn't actually film in Thailand, but in Malaysia never shows on the screen. The photography and costumes should be automatic nominees for Oscar. For that matter, both Jodie and Chow could comfortably fit in their respective nominee lists for Best Actor and Best Actress. Overall, a wonderful film and I'm really looking forward to the DVD in June!

What a treat this film is for the eyes! Stunning architecture and decoration! Lovely costumes! Beautiful scenery! The Art direction will surely win an Academy Award!

Too bad the story doesn't equal the quality of its visual support. It is kitschy to propose that a young British schoolmarm could outsmart the military leaders of Thailand while leading the country's powerful monarch around by the nose. I didn't expect this movie to be historically accurate. Anna Leonowens' diaries showed a preposterous assumption of self-importance at the court of Siam. But, I did expect this mega-movie to be good theater. What a disappointment!

Anna and Mongkut's romance was neither interesting or plausible. This Anna, hell-bent on educating everyone around her to social justice issues rather than the western classics she was employed to teach, is an invention of Hollywood hacks. Anna's politically correct and unargueable views, were simply a cover for no progressive story line. It's hard to see how this powerful, thoughtful king would be interested in this busy-body.

Jody Foster was her usual cool self, often competent, not compelling. Chow Yun-Fat was excellent as far as his lines allowed. The Malaysian children who played Monkut's progeny were delightful, and his concubines superb. Again, all were lovely to look at.

The real stars here were the set designers. They should have been allowed to write the screen play. Bet they wouldn't have done any worse.