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.
228 Reviews
Visual beauty, and a very strong film on the whole
TheLittleSongbird27 November 2016
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
'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
Beauty and serenity
buzznzipp199523 January 2007
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. (*****)
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. (*****)
MAGNUM-MAGNIFICENT MONGKUT
lillitheph9 February 2000
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.
Might have worked better with a different denouement
JamesHitchcock30 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Anna Leonowens is best-known today as the character played by Deborah Kerr in "The King and I", but she was a real person, not a fictional one, and her story was also told in the film "Anna and the King of Siam" from 1946 (which I have never seen). "Anna and the King" is Hollywood's second non-musical version of her story.
Anna was a widowed British schoolteacher who travelled to Siam, as Thailand was then known, to become tutor to the many children and wives of King Mongkut. In reality she seems to have had little contact with the King himself, but her diaries suggested otherwise, and Westerners have long been fascinated by the supposed friendship which grew up between them. Some of the elements of this film will be recognisable to anyone familiar with "The King and I". Both films mention Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and feature a doomed romance between Lady Tuptim, one of the King's concubines, and a commoner. There are, of course, lots of outrageously cute children running about everywhere. The fictitious subplot in which Anna helps the King foil a military coup by a treacherous general, however, appears to be an invention by the scriptwriters for this film.
Like "The King and I" the film was banned in Thailand on account of its allegedly disrespectful portrayal of King Mongkut; it would appear that the country's lèse-majesté laws protect not only the current monarch but also his predecessors. This rather heavy-handed censorship seems strange in a country which claims (or did until the recent military coup) to be a democracy; imagine the storm of protest which would have been unleashed had the British government, for example, attempted to censor "Mrs Brown" because of the way it depicted Queen Victoria. The film could not, of course, be shot in Thailand itself, and filming took place in Malaysia. The casting of Chow Yun-fat rather than a European like Yul Brynner as Mongkut seems to have been an attempt by the film-makers to placate local concerns, but does not seem to have succeeded in this aim. Racial sensitivities in the Far East are not always the same as Western ones- the casting of three Chinese actresses as Japanese characters in "Memoirs of a Geisha" gave rise to protests in both China and Japan- and to Thais the casting of a Chinese actor as one of their country's most revered monarchs may have seemed just as insensitive as the casting of a Westerner.
Chow's interpretation of the role is rather different from Brynner's- more sensitive and less autocratic and self-assured. One thing which may have offended the Thais is the depiction of the relationship between Anna and the King. With Kerr and Brynner, it was clear that their relationship was based upon friendship and mutual respect, but the question of whether they had actually fallen in love was left discreetly unanswered. With Chow and Jodie Foster it is all too clear that they are in love, if not lovers in the sexual sense, and the historical accuracy of this is (to say the least) doubtful.
The emphasis of the story has shifted somewhat since the days of "The King and I". That film was made in the mid-fifties, a period when many regions of the globe were still under European colonial rule, something subtly reflected in the script. The Siam ruled by King Yul was a charmingly backward country which needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century, a task which would have been undertaken by the colonial powers had its own ruler not resolved to do it himself. Here Anna arrives in Siam inwardly convinced of the superiority of Western culture and that her role will be to play a part in the enlightenment of a barbarian nation. As the story progresses, however, she realises that the real situation is far more complex and that the West has as much to learn from the East as vice versa. The teacher is taught.
The film is visually attractive and beautifully photographed, and features an excellent performance from Foster, possibly the most accomplished Hollywood actress of the nineties. She also copes well with her character's British accent, something which cannot be said of all American actors called upon to play British characters. (Foster's gift for accents is one of a number of characteristics she shares with Meryl Streep, possibly the most accomplished Hollywood actress of the eighties). The film does, however, suffer at times from a lack of plausibility, particularly in the subplot involving the rebel general, something inserted to turn it into a standard thriller with an identifiable villain. Were Siamese soldiers of this period really so badly trained that they would have mistaken the sound of fireworks for that of gunfire? "Anna and the King" makes for enjoyable viewing, but it might have worked better with a different denouement. 7/10
Some goofs. The story takes place during the early 1860s when King Mongkut would have been in his sixties, far older than the character played by Chow Yun-Fat. Reference is made to the "King of France", even though at this period France was ruled by Emperor Napoleon III. Admittedly, the distinction might have seemed academic to the Siamese, but no French diplomat would have committed the solecism of referring to his monarch as "le Roi" rather than "l'Empereur". And the royal children sing the song "Daisy, Daisy", which was not written until the 1890s, possibly as a satirical comment on Daisy Countess of Warwick, mistress of the Prince of Wales.
Anna was a widowed British schoolteacher who travelled to Siam, as Thailand was then known, to become tutor to the many children and wives of King Mongkut. In reality she seems to have had little contact with the King himself, but her diaries suggested otherwise, and Westerners have long been fascinated by the supposed friendship which grew up between them. Some of the elements of this film will be recognisable to anyone familiar with "The King and I". Both films mention Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and feature a doomed romance between Lady Tuptim, one of the King's concubines, and a commoner. There are, of course, lots of outrageously cute children running about everywhere. The fictitious subplot in which Anna helps the King foil a military coup by a treacherous general, however, appears to be an invention by the scriptwriters for this film.
Like "The King and I" the film was banned in Thailand on account of its allegedly disrespectful portrayal of King Mongkut; it would appear that the country's lèse-majesté laws protect not only the current monarch but also his predecessors. This rather heavy-handed censorship seems strange in a country which claims (or did until the recent military coup) to be a democracy; imagine the storm of protest which would have been unleashed had the British government, for example, attempted to censor "Mrs Brown" because of the way it depicted Queen Victoria. The film could not, of course, be shot in Thailand itself, and filming took place in Malaysia. The casting of Chow Yun-fat rather than a European like Yul Brynner as Mongkut seems to have been an attempt by the film-makers to placate local concerns, but does not seem to have succeeded in this aim. Racial sensitivities in the Far East are not always the same as Western ones- the casting of three Chinese actresses as Japanese characters in "Memoirs of a Geisha" gave rise to protests in both China and Japan- and to Thais the casting of a Chinese actor as one of their country's most revered monarchs may have seemed just as insensitive as the casting of a Westerner.
Chow's interpretation of the role is rather different from Brynner's- more sensitive and less autocratic and self-assured. One thing which may have offended the Thais is the depiction of the relationship between Anna and the King. With Kerr and Brynner, it was clear that their relationship was based upon friendship and mutual respect, but the question of whether they had actually fallen in love was left discreetly unanswered. With Chow and Jodie Foster it is all too clear that they are in love, if not lovers in the sexual sense, and the historical accuracy of this is (to say the least) doubtful.
The emphasis of the story has shifted somewhat since the days of "The King and I". That film was made in the mid-fifties, a period when many regions of the globe were still under European colonial rule, something subtly reflected in the script. The Siam ruled by King Yul was a charmingly backward country which needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century, a task which would have been undertaken by the colonial powers had its own ruler not resolved to do it himself. Here Anna arrives in Siam inwardly convinced of the superiority of Western culture and that her role will be to play a part in the enlightenment of a barbarian nation. As the story progresses, however, she realises that the real situation is far more complex and that the West has as much to learn from the East as vice versa. The teacher is taught.
The film is visually attractive and beautifully photographed, and features an excellent performance from Foster, possibly the most accomplished Hollywood actress of the nineties. She also copes well with her character's British accent, something which cannot be said of all American actors called upon to play British characters. (Foster's gift for accents is one of a number of characteristics she shares with Meryl Streep, possibly the most accomplished Hollywood actress of the eighties). The film does, however, suffer at times from a lack of plausibility, particularly in the subplot involving the rebel general, something inserted to turn it into a standard thriller with an identifiable villain. Were Siamese soldiers of this period really so badly trained that they would have mistaken the sound of fireworks for that of gunfire? "Anna and the King" makes for enjoyable viewing, but it might have worked better with a different denouement. 7/10
Some goofs. The story takes place during the early 1860s when King Mongkut would have been in his sixties, far older than the character played by Chow Yun-Fat. Reference is made to the "King of France", even though at this period France was ruled by Emperor Napoleon III. Admittedly, the distinction might have seemed academic to the Siamese, but no French diplomat would have committed the solecism of referring to his monarch as "le Roi" rather than "l'Empereur". And the royal children sing the song "Daisy, Daisy", which was not written until the 1890s, possibly as a satirical comment on Daisy Countess of Warwick, mistress of the Prince of Wales.
a bit long and romance lacks chemistry
SnoopyStyle26 May 2015
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 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.
A mixed back of attributes
vincentlynch-moonoi28 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I rarely review a film which has already been covered this many time. However, I'll make an exception here because I visited and lived in Thailand for a total of nearly 4 years.
It's difficult to make a judgment about this film because there are so many ways to look at it.
For example, the story of Anna Leonowens is very basically true. She was the teaching governess of King Mongkut's children, and she certainly had a significant influence on Prince (and later) King Chulalongkorn; during a visit to Europe as an adult, he visited her long after her departure from Siam/Thailand. However, it is very unlikely that she had any undue influence on old King Mongkut, and it was certainly nothing like this film (or "The King & I") portrays. There is little, if any, evidence that there was a concubine named Tuptim or that that subplot has any truth to it. Nevertheless, it's a "fun" story to see...as fiction often is. Here I would say 30% history, 70% fiction. Additionally, I may be wrong, but I don't recall in Thai history King Mongkut's brother being killed as depicted in the film.
In terms of the sets, the film must be judged very differently. They are magnificent and, for the most part, remarkably accurate. King Mongkut's throne room was not that large, but aside from that I would have to give the sets an A+.
On the other hand, in terms of settings, the producers and directors were not as accurate. I've been most of the places depicted here, and other than in the Three Pagoda Pass and Nong Khai, all the other sites (Bangkok/Krung Thep; the seaside palace; and Anna's house) there are NO mountains, just the flat flood plain of the Chao Phrya River.
But, while I am not fluent in Thai, I speak a bit of it, and much of the dialog was very well spoken Thai language. Some of the extras did not look Thai to me.
Jodie Foster did a fine job of Anna Leonowens. Some have criticized her British accent, and I can't speak to that. But her acting was very good. Chow Yun-Fat, as King Mongkut, was fine, although if you look up photos of King Mongkut, you'll find he was actually a very homely man (and that's putting it politely). Other primary supporting actors did a very reasonable job.
So, overall, I give this film fairly good marks, although certainly not for historical accuracy. For entertainment value, it's well done.
It's difficult to make a judgment about this film because there are so many ways to look at it.
For example, the story of Anna Leonowens is very basically true. She was the teaching governess of King Mongkut's children, and she certainly had a significant influence on Prince (and later) King Chulalongkorn; during a visit to Europe as an adult, he visited her long after her departure from Siam/Thailand. However, it is very unlikely that she had any undue influence on old King Mongkut, and it was certainly nothing like this film (or "The King & I") portrays. There is little, if any, evidence that there was a concubine named Tuptim or that that subplot has any truth to it. Nevertheless, it's a "fun" story to see...as fiction often is. Here I would say 30% history, 70% fiction. Additionally, I may be wrong, but I don't recall in Thai history King Mongkut's brother being killed as depicted in the film.
In terms of the sets, the film must be judged very differently. They are magnificent and, for the most part, remarkably accurate. King Mongkut's throne room was not that large, but aside from that I would have to give the sets an A+.
On the other hand, in terms of settings, the producers and directors were not as accurate. I've been most of the places depicted here, and other than in the Three Pagoda Pass and Nong Khai, all the other sites (Bangkok/Krung Thep; the seaside palace; and Anna's house) there are NO mountains, just the flat flood plain of the Chao Phrya River.
But, while I am not fluent in Thai, I speak a bit of it, and much of the dialog was very well spoken Thai language. Some of the extras did not look Thai to me.
Jodie Foster did a fine job of Anna Leonowens. Some have criticized her British accent, and I can't speak to that. But her acting was very good. Chow Yun-Fat, as King Mongkut, was fine, although if you look up photos of King Mongkut, you'll find he was actually a very homely man (and that's putting it politely). Other primary supporting actors did a very reasonable job.
So, overall, I give this film fairly good marks, although certainly not for historical accuracy. For entertainment value, it's well done.
questionable history, but a wonderful movie
steve.schonberger16 December 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Since the movie builds on unreliable historic source materials, including the diaries of Anna Leonowens it credits, it can't hope to be good history. However, as a fictional story loosely based on the time of Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn it's a wonderful movie.
The movie as bad history:
The movie credits the diaries of Anna Leonowens as its source, presumably meaning her books about her five years as an English teacher in Siam (Thailand). Other historical sources discredit much of the material in her books as self-promoting, ethnocentric, and often simply fictional. The movie appears to draw from more accurate sources as well, but shouldn't be mistaken for good history.
According to the movie's Thai detractors, the worst divergence from history seems to be the Tuptim sub-plot, which to avoid spoilers I won't outline. Although Anna's books apparently tell of such events, other sources from the time period (Thai and Western) either fail to confirm her telling or directly contradict her. If Tuptim were to disappear from the movie after she joined Anna's class, Thailand would have no good reason to ban it.
Another point in the movie that Thailand may have found embarrassing -- slavery -- is historically accurate. Around one fourth of the population was bound by debt-slavery. King Chulalongkorn abolished slavery in 1909. The movie credits Anna with planting the idea, which probably exceeds even her own self-promotion.
In addition to Anna's historically unreliable books, the movie mixes in elements of her son's real friendship with King Chulalongkorn (the crown prince in the movie), and that king's reign.
The real Anna was mentioned only once in King Mongkut's diaries. She was apparently nothing more than a hired English language teacher; never an advisor at court. However, Anna's son (Louis Timothy) returned to Bangkok. He was a friend of King Chulalongkorn, an advisor at court, and founder of a timber company that still exists.
The real King Mongkut had only eight wives and about 15 children, and had spent 27 years as a monk before becoming king. King Chulalongkorn had 50 wives, and about 39 children. The movie's King Mongkut mixed his monastery background with the many marriages of King Chulalongkorn.
The Thai language is badly pronounced (according to others; I don't know a word of it). The real-life Anna claimed to be fluent, but wasn't, so the movie Anna's bad pronunciation would have been closer to history than to Anna's stories. Of course the king's bad Thai would detract from the movie for anyone who knew how the language really sounds.
The movie as great cinema:
Whatever its historical faults, Anna and the King is wonderful big screen entertainment. The acting, cinematography, costumes, sets, natural locations, and directing are all great, and the screenplay is generally good.
Jodie Foster is wonderful, as usual. Chow Yun-Fat is excellent also, in what appears to be his first serious English language drama (after a long history of mostly action movies I haven't seen). All of the supporting actors are at least competent, and many are good or excellent. The many child actors are particularly impressive.
The visual experience of the movie is wonderful. The costumes are spectacular, and quite historically reasonable. The palace and other sets are grand and wondrous. The natural locations are beautiful. The cinematography is a treat for the eyes, and well worth seeing on the big screen.
The screenplay is good, but it has some weaknesses. A real strength of the screenplay is how it expresses the king's strength and cleverness in the face of imperialism. Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonial domination, thanks to Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, and the script deserves credit for showing that notable accomplishment.
The revolt sub-plot is another strength, bring action and a dramatic climax into the movie. Historically, the kings were limited to constitutional monarchy, but not until the 1930s. The classroom scenes give the lots of time to Jodie Foster and the adorable child actors, and hint at the future real-life friendship between the prince and Anna's son.
The weakest part of the story is the Tuptim sub-plot. It is the most obvious disagreement with history, and is probably Thailand's main reason for objecting to the movie. It contradicts the nature of the king's character, and adds length to a movie that's already too long for some viewers. The best part is that it puts Bai Ling on screen; too bad the script didn't give her a part that improved the movie.
Overall, the movie is one of the best of the year, as long as it's not mistaken for history. It's beautiful, wonderfully performed, and has a story that's good in spite of one notable flaw.
The movie as bad history:
The movie credits the diaries of Anna Leonowens as its source, presumably meaning her books about her five years as an English teacher in Siam (Thailand). Other historical sources discredit much of the material in her books as self-promoting, ethnocentric, and often simply fictional. The movie appears to draw from more accurate sources as well, but shouldn't be mistaken for good history.
According to the movie's Thai detractors, the worst divergence from history seems to be the Tuptim sub-plot, which to avoid spoilers I won't outline. Although Anna's books apparently tell of such events, other sources from the time period (Thai and Western) either fail to confirm her telling or directly contradict her. If Tuptim were to disappear from the movie after she joined Anna's class, Thailand would have no good reason to ban it.
Another point in the movie that Thailand may have found embarrassing -- slavery -- is historically accurate. Around one fourth of the population was bound by debt-slavery. King Chulalongkorn abolished slavery in 1909. The movie credits Anna with planting the idea, which probably exceeds even her own self-promotion.
In addition to Anna's historically unreliable books, the movie mixes in elements of her son's real friendship with King Chulalongkorn (the crown prince in the movie), and that king's reign.
The real Anna was mentioned only once in King Mongkut's diaries. She was apparently nothing more than a hired English language teacher; never an advisor at court. However, Anna's son (Louis Timothy) returned to Bangkok. He was a friend of King Chulalongkorn, an advisor at court, and founder of a timber company that still exists.
The real King Mongkut had only eight wives and about 15 children, and had spent 27 years as a monk before becoming king. King Chulalongkorn had 50 wives, and about 39 children. The movie's King Mongkut mixed his monastery background with the many marriages of King Chulalongkorn.
The Thai language is badly pronounced (according to others; I don't know a word of it). The real-life Anna claimed to be fluent, but wasn't, so the movie Anna's bad pronunciation would have been closer to history than to Anna's stories. Of course the king's bad Thai would detract from the movie for anyone who knew how the language really sounds.
The movie as great cinema:
Whatever its historical faults, Anna and the King is wonderful big screen entertainment. The acting, cinematography, costumes, sets, natural locations, and directing are all great, and the screenplay is generally good.
Jodie Foster is wonderful, as usual. Chow Yun-Fat is excellent also, in what appears to be his first serious English language drama (after a long history of mostly action movies I haven't seen). All of the supporting actors are at least competent, and many are good or excellent. The many child actors are particularly impressive.
The visual experience of the movie is wonderful. The costumes are spectacular, and quite historically reasonable. The palace and other sets are grand and wondrous. The natural locations are beautiful. The cinematography is a treat for the eyes, and well worth seeing on the big screen.
The screenplay is good, but it has some weaknesses. A real strength of the screenplay is how it expresses the king's strength and cleverness in the face of imperialism. Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonial domination, thanks to Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, and the script deserves credit for showing that notable accomplishment.
The revolt sub-plot is another strength, bring action and a dramatic climax into the movie. Historically, the kings were limited to constitutional monarchy, but not until the 1930s. The classroom scenes give the lots of time to Jodie Foster and the adorable child actors, and hint at the future real-life friendship between the prince and Anna's son.
The weakest part of the story is the Tuptim sub-plot. It is the most obvious disagreement with history, and is probably Thailand's main reason for objecting to the movie. It contradicts the nature of the king's character, and adds length to a movie that's already too long for some viewers. The best part is that it puts Bai Ling on screen; too bad the script didn't give her a part that improved the movie.
Overall, the movie is one of the best of the year, as long as it's not mistaken for history. It's beautiful, wonderfully performed, and has a story that's good in spite of one notable flaw.
A banquet of sensory delight
FlickJunkie-223 June 2000
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.
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.
Good premise, banal delivery
sandyb11 July 2001
It is often difficult to swallow the "romanticization" of a good story. Anna Leonowens was a rather narrow-minded woman who, nevertheless, had the gumption to do something interesting with her life -- largely because she needed the money. She went to Siam, taught the King's many children, and eventually departed. She wrote a journal with silly insights into a profoundly serious and sophisticated culture. It is unlikely she exchanged more than two words with the King during her stay. He was, after all, a busy man, and she was basically the help -- even if she was somewhat out of the ordinary.
In pitching the film, Anna star Jodie Foster said that this story would be the most truthful to Leonowens' experience (unlike the adored, but totally manufactured, musical). However, the truth is often incompatible with the market and with an A-list actor's ego. Foster's insistence on playing heroines who always do the right thing is becoming rather tedious. She is tightly coiled in the film, musters a rather bad British accent, and, is really quite irritating. You want to slap her, or at least get the King to loosen her up with his lauded lover's technique. Perhaps Foster is trying to balance myth and reality; in that case, her schizophrenic performance merits some critical notice.
The true stars are the Asians -- Chow Yun Fat shows you can take a Hollywood confection and make something of it; the same can be said of the hauntingly beautiful ladies who portray Lady Thiang (Deanna Yusoff) and Tuptim (Ling Bai). And the art direction and costumes certainly deserve the kudos that came their way.
Of course, it would have been too much to stick with the real story. There's nothing like a platonic inter-racial, cross-cultural, going-nowhere-but-the-stars romance to liven things up. The problem is Foster is not really good with men, and the plot is further convoluted by politics with Burma -- an issue on which Anna, of course, has enlightened opinions that she shares with the King and the British representatives (as if they would have cared).
Such a lovely premise, such banal delivery. One day, someone may get this story right. Perhaps the Thai film industry could take a crack at it.
In pitching the film, Anna star Jodie Foster said that this story would be the most truthful to Leonowens' experience (unlike the adored, but totally manufactured, musical). However, the truth is often incompatible with the market and with an A-list actor's ego. Foster's insistence on playing heroines who always do the right thing is becoming rather tedious. She is tightly coiled in the film, musters a rather bad British accent, and, is really quite irritating. You want to slap her, or at least get the King to loosen her up with his lauded lover's technique. Perhaps Foster is trying to balance myth and reality; in that case, her schizophrenic performance merits some critical notice.
The true stars are the Asians -- Chow Yun Fat shows you can take a Hollywood confection and make something of it; the same can be said of the hauntingly beautiful ladies who portray Lady Thiang (Deanna Yusoff) and Tuptim (Ling Bai). And the art direction and costumes certainly deserve the kudos that came their way.
Of course, it would have been too much to stick with the real story. There's nothing like a platonic inter-racial, cross-cultural, going-nowhere-but-the-stars romance to liven things up. The problem is Foster is not really good with men, and the plot is further convoluted by politics with Burma -- an issue on which Anna, of course, has enlightened opinions that she shares with the King and the British representatives (as if they would have cared).
Such a lovely premise, such banal delivery. One day, someone may get this story right. Perhaps the Thai film industry could take a crack at it.
Too long & boring
Eric_weis9 June 2020
Stunning
Calysta17 December 1999
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
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
Grubby Brit's
clydfrog29 August 2001
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.
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 King of Siam . . . why, why that's the lead!"
southdavid19 March 2021
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.
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.
Flawed, but good anyway. The romance felt real; the visuals are spectacular!
bopdog16 January 2000
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 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."
Even if inaccurate, this is a good movie
Smells_Like_Cheese11 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have to tell you a story: back when DVD players were first released, I had to convince my mother to buy one. The one movie that I convinced her to buy the DVD player with the movie Anna and the King, it was a movie she adored and had beautiful cinematography. She always begged me to watch it, but I never got to it. Unfortunately, she passed away a few years ago and I was going through her movie collection yesterday and decided to watch it for her. There's my touching story of the day. So Anna and the King is basically the non-musical version of The King and I. I never read the book, so I'm not sure how accurate it is with the movie, but from what I understand, a lot of people say it isn't accurate at all. But judging from what I saw, Anna and the King was a good movie.
Anna Leonowens is a widow has come to Siam with her son Louis to teach English to the royal children. She is a strong-willed, intelligent woman and this pleases the King, who wants to modernize his country to keep it safe from the threat of colonialism, while protecting many of the ancient traditions that give Siam its unique identity. Anna is enchanted by the royal children. Siam is under siege from what appears to be a British-funded gang against King Mongkut, using Burmese soldiers. Mongkut sends out his brother Prince Chaofa and his military adviser General Alak to investigate. However, it turns out that Alak is the man behind the coup and now the king is in turmoil on who he can trust; maybe Anna.
My only problem with the film is that it does run a little long making it drag. At two and a half hours long, it does feel like it, especially with the end. But the acting and cinematography really make up for whatever you feel you lost in time. Jodie Foster pulls in a very good performance as Anna. She's beautiful, kind and very intelligent and makes you believe that she could charm any leader easily. Yun-Fat Chow is very dignified as the king and you truly care for him as you dig in deeper into his character. He's a man who not only leads the country, but wants to make it modern with freedom. He wants to remain as a certain strong man that leads his land, but wants to be a good father as well. He has over a dozen wives and over 50 children; you think having 3 kids is more than enough, I'd like to see the King help the kids with their after school assignments.
The cinematography is so beautiful and the lands look stunning in this picture as you feel taken with Anna on this wonderful journey. The colors and scope of the film is grand and epic. The villains of the film are a little basic and you really don't care too much about them. It's the two leads that steal the show and it's their mutual love and respect of each other that carries the film well. The children did a good job and there's a baby Tom Felton in the picture. Now a warning that the film is a bit long, but I think it was over all worth it. Anna and the King, I could see why my mother was convinced to transfer to a better picture and sound over this movie.
7/10
Anna Leonowens is a widow has come to Siam with her son Louis to teach English to the royal children. She is a strong-willed, intelligent woman and this pleases the King, who wants to modernize his country to keep it safe from the threat of colonialism, while protecting many of the ancient traditions that give Siam its unique identity. Anna is enchanted by the royal children. Siam is under siege from what appears to be a British-funded gang against King Mongkut, using Burmese soldiers. Mongkut sends out his brother Prince Chaofa and his military adviser General Alak to investigate. However, it turns out that Alak is the man behind the coup and now the king is in turmoil on who he can trust; maybe Anna.
My only problem with the film is that it does run a little long making it drag. At two and a half hours long, it does feel like it, especially with the end. But the acting and cinematography really make up for whatever you feel you lost in time. Jodie Foster pulls in a very good performance as Anna. She's beautiful, kind and very intelligent and makes you believe that she could charm any leader easily. Yun-Fat Chow is very dignified as the king and you truly care for him as you dig in deeper into his character. He's a man who not only leads the country, but wants to make it modern with freedom. He wants to remain as a certain strong man that leads his land, but wants to be a good father as well. He has over a dozen wives and over 50 children; you think having 3 kids is more than enough, I'd like to see the King help the kids with their after school assignments.
The cinematography is so beautiful and the lands look stunning in this picture as you feel taken with Anna on this wonderful journey. The colors and scope of the film is grand and epic. The villains of the film are a little basic and you really don't care too much about them. It's the two leads that steal the show and it's their mutual love and respect of each other that carries the film well. The children did a good job and there's a baby Tom Felton in the picture. Now a warning that the film is a bit long, but I think it was over all worth it. Anna and the King, I could see why my mother was convinced to transfer to a better picture and sound over this movie.
7/10
Didn't want to see it but ... wow, pretty good!
Vic_max18 January 2008
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.
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.
A highly romanticized version of a romantic legend.
philippa-426 December 1999
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.
One subplot too long
mattc-69 December 1999
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.
pretty good
Rhino Rover16 January 2000
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
"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 solid historical epic which is better than you might think
db783310 December 2004
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.
Boring
kelly-gaudreau27 April 2021
Superbly acted and photographed
Burmese13 December 1999
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!
Not a patch on the King and I starring Yul Bryner and Deborah Kerr
srirammeera14 August 2021
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!!!
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!!!
Gorgeous feast for the eyes dampened by silly, predictable plot
fan-1914 February 2000
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
