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.
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.