I watched this film because I'm such a fan of Irene Dunne, particularly in her light-hearted romantic and screwball comedies. There are some amusing situations, but this is ultimately a drama and certainly not a lavish musical. It still, to me, is the best version of them all.This film hits hard right out of the gate with Anna and her son caught in a situation that neither quite expect. Rex Harrison plays the King surprisingly well despite not looking as exotic as Yul Brenner or as truly authentic as Yun-Fat Chow. Dunne's determination and caring for her son spur her on and make her brave and strong in an understated fashion as the film progresses. The main characters repartee is a delight to witness. Their chemistry is just right, and they do not have the luxury of lavish musical numbers to draw them together. One just knows they have a great respect for each other from very fine acting. I will say that I found this version the most emotionally charged of the three motion pictures, yet it is not a Peyton Place melodrama. Maybe that's why I love it so. It's so well-made in every aspect that it really packs that emotional punch for me. I didn't even recognize the usually very recognizable Lee J. Cobb and somehow missed his name in the credits the first time. I think this is about as fine an epic drama about forbidden romance and opposing cultures as I've seen. I give most of that credit to the wonderful performances of the leads and the incredibly adept script. It entertains, tugs at your heartstrings, and doesn't disappoint. I highly recommend it as the best version of them all:)

Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison gave compelling performances in the 1946 film. The trouble is that the film is much too talky. Sociologists would have a field day with this one with Harrison, as the ruler of Siam, who realizes that the country needs to change to modern thinking but is unable to do this and acts barbaric in the way he dealt with an unfaithful Linda Darnell and her priest friend.At least, the remake with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner broke up the talking with fine musical interludes. Ironically, Dunne, who could sing very well, was not cast in the 1956 production probably because she was aging.(8 years after this she was campaigning for Goldwater.)Surprisingly, Dunne and Harrison both failed to receive Oscar nominations and the picture was ignored by the academy as well. The one surprising nomination was by Gale Sondergaard in the supporting category for her portrayal of the much ignored wife of Harrison. As interesting as her performance was, Sondergaard was no match for the winner that year-Anne Baxter, totally brilliant in "The Razor's Edge." In the 1956 film Sondergaard's part was totally written out.As Harrison's adviser, Lee J. Cobb was excellentObviously, the ending in the '46 film was far more serious and sad. Dunne sure knew how to let those tears flow in the same vein as Katharine Hepburn. Wonder if Hepburn were considered for the part of Anna Owens?

Since the making of Rogers & Hammerstien's The King and I ten years after this production, it has been difficult not to compare the two, especially as the later glossy cinema-scope musical version is virtually identical in all but the songs. The performance of Rex Harrison is actually rather good for a white man daubed with boot polish on his face, but of all the cast it is Lee J. Cobb (as the Prime Minister to the King) who stands out, so I am not sure why Gale Sondergaard (Tip Tem) was nominated for an Oscar rather than he. The production design and photography is excellent and fully deserves the Oscar awards. There is the usual Americanisation of a British story, thus devaluing its quality. Irene Dunn is an American actress playing an English rose, she tries hard, but she is not Deborah Kerr, and her "son" is totally American, no vestige of an English accent at all! What also spoils the believability of the story (which is loosely based upon exaggerated fact) is English porcelain clearly spelling Honour as Honor! Also, the King's obsession with the American Civil war and Abraham Lincoln is baffling when you consider that this story is set in a time when the divided American States were engrossed fighting amongst themselves, whilst Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth and the British Empire at its height. The difference between a good film and an excellent film is in the detail, accuracy, respect to race and its believability – this could have been an excellent film had such an English story not been Americanised quite so clumsily.

Very enjoyable tale of Governess teaching Siam Ruler's children, then butting heads with the deified king over issues of culture and custom. Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison star, and they work well together, from the frosty start, to the begrudging respect into the romantic overtones that develop. Their chemistry is the key to holding the film together - and it works. The sets are marvelous, and the supporting cast (Gale Sondergaard, Lee J. Cobb -I said Lee J. Cobb!] et al) are quite good.There's been much ado about comparing this movie with THE KING AND I. Margaret Langdon did not write a musical about her experiences there, she wrote a book. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote the musical, based on the book. The two are certainly two different entities, and should be based on their singular merits and faults. It's about as silly as trying to link REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE and GREASE!Yes, Anna's character is a tad dowdy, if not prudish; yet these are values from the 1860's, not Woodstock in the 1960's. It's really not fair to judge the characters motivations by our present standards or perceptions of morality. True, it would have been better to cast an Asian actor as Mongkut, yet these were not the realities of 1940's Hollywood; and we well know this. Overall, we watch cinema to be entertained and escape, and ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM provide more than ample reward for the viewer, in that regard.