I seriously doubt the writers for this film ever saw the original "The King and I," which holds up to audiences even today. What they did watch apparently was "Aladdin." Don't believe me? Let's see...an evil court advisor and his comedic sidekick planning to take over the government, a pet cat in the royal palace, a young man lying about his identity to get the girl, a ruler who changes the marriage law at the end so the boy can get the girl, a romantic conflict of royalty versus peasantry, a boy and his pet monkey...no that's not like Aladdin at all.

But what really bugs me about this film is the story. Why was so much changed? Why did they introduce the conflict of a villain? Why did they include that love story between the Burmese girl and the prince? The original love story between Anne and the King becomes irrelevent and poorly developed, and the movie gets lost in all it's unnecessary subplots. By the end you practically forget there was a love story between those two at all, and when they try to conclude it you're left unsatisfied.

Also, I don't want to hear any one saying this film is good because of the music. Yes, the music is good, but the people who made the film didn't orchestrate it, Rogers and Hammerstein did. I could remake "The Sound of Music," leave in all the songs, and turn it into a porn movie. Does that mean it's a good film? Besides, the songs are often ruined by the sight gags they have going on at the same time. The "Getting to Know You" scene is especially true of this, as for the song's entire duration all we see are the stupid fights between the monkey and villain's sidekick over the singing. And I mean this is during the WHOLE SONG.

Oh yeah, and what was up with all the animal sidekicks? There's like one for every character! First there's that monkey, then the cougar...and then an elephant? Did we really need the elephant? That was just overdoing it. And while we're talking about sidekicks...the villain's sidekick was very offensive. He's an Asian stereotype that I would expect in a 1930's film, but in this day and age, come on.

Animating "The King and I" could have been neat, but not by these people. In fact, I hope these people never animate. Again. Ever.

Director Richard Rich, who helmed Disney's The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron, helms a very Disney-worthy animated feature for another movie studio. The artwork is beautiful, very vibrant, but the animation is on par with alot of the Disney films from the 1980s, maybe. The characters are basically the same from the original musical, The King of Siam and Anna included. However, there is a new character named Master Little who is voiced by SNL funnyman Darrell Hammond. He's probably the funniest part of the movie. One detractor, is that I thought that the villian, The Kralahome, was a bit too much like Jafar from Disney's Aladdin in his attempt to manipulate various characters, the King included.

However, I think the number one reason I like it better than the 1956 version is because it is only a brief 90 minutes while the original tops out at a whopping 133 mins. Overall I enjoyed Warner's 'King,' even though it seems to drag at points, I will no doubt enjoy watching it for years to come.