Brynner is so strongly identified with this role that it is difficult to remember him in anything else. He gives his all in this performance, sometimes way over the top, but it fits with this movie which is in itself over the top, offering us the Hollywood version of Siam and introducing 1955 sensibilities to the era of 1862. No matter.

The musical numbers are great and hummable, most done by Marni Nixon, who dubbed for so many in that era of endless musicals and no-voice stars.

People who protest about the insensibility and racial aspect of these musicals (Showboat and South Pacific, etc. also comes to mind)don't get it - that this is a musical, composed about an unenlightened era and is not a documentary and cannot be taken seriously.

The play within the play is truly magical, I could watch it over and over again, it is a perfect little opera.

Deborah Kerr is terrific in this and should have received an Oscar. I felt sorry for the boy who played her son - I think they appeared again together in Tea and Sympathy, but I could be wrong - there was not much to his role, he had to stand around and just be pretty and nod at his mother a lot. Very difficult.

Rita Moreno excelled as usual.

8 out of 10. Not to be missed.

A widowed teacher and son travel to Siam, where she takes a job as governess to The King's children, after a troubled start, the pair develop an unexpected friendship.

It's not for everyone, and it's a film that would probably never be made in this day an age, but it was a huge success when it launched, and it's still loved and well regarded today. It's a lavish musical, with a pretty terrific cast, it's both engaging and amusing.

Don't come here for a history lesson or an accurate portrayal of the culture, come here for two hours of escape. It's hard not to get lost in The King and I. The cultural clashes are something to behold, The King's brashness contrasted with the sheer English desire for properness, quite lovely.

The costumes and sets are divine, in terms of production values, this 1950's classic is off the scale, it truly does look sublime, it's a huge production, I'm not sure there's anything as attractive as Yul Brynner here though, his appearance is other worldly, his presence, his posture, harsh but incredible. Personally I think Brynner provides a masterclass here, he's phenomenal, when you watch this film, it's him you're watching.

Deborah Kerr, a fine actress, she fitted the bill perfectly, her character is so prim and proper, the definitively English Governess, but she has a twinkle in her eye, a strong reserve, but a sense of humour and confidence. She could have easily made off with a grand piano under that crinoline.

The music is wonderfully memorable, it's memorable, it's prominent throughout, you'll not be able to watch, and not sing a couple of phrases.

Favourite scene, Shall we dance, it's the highlight of the film for me, magical.

It's simply not Christmas without The King and I.

8/10.

The music is lovely and the is a very visually pleasing film as well. However, two outstanding problems really prevented this movie from being anything other than just average.

First, the movie DIDN'T have an ending. After running about 2 hours, the king inexplicably announces he is feeling depressed and is about to die. Everyone cries and then the king (so vigorous only a scene or two before) just drops dead! Huh? Were they running out of film so they slapped on this ending?! Second, and probably more important is the fact that the movie portrays the King of Siam as some sort of idiot who needs the educated Westerner to show him what a boob he really is. The best example is the king's idea to send President Lincoln a herd of MALE elephants so they can populate the forests of America. NO ONE is that stupid! This is made worst by the fact that the REAL king was college educated (Cambridge or some other high-brow school) and Anna was by far the less intelligent of the two. This just seems rather insulting the way they are portrayed in the film.