I have not seen the original 1956 film yet, so I'll compare it to it's closest rivals from the same time-period. The voice-acting, in the case of the King speaking broken-English, was annoying. Tarzan spoke broken-English and it managed to make him quite charming. The animation leaves much to be desired for, but since Warner Bros was quite new at animating at the time, there's nothing else i can say, except for I've seen far more superior animation from the Walt Disney Studios (no surprise). Tarzan (1999 film) for example, was done in the same year, and the animation is far more refined and because of that, the film can still be enjoyed by today's youth. As far as the ''Prime Minister wanting to usurp the King'' theme is concerned, Dreamworks Animation (founded by a bunch of ex-Disney animators) did a far better job in The Road To El Dorado (2000) with their High Priest trying to kill the ''false gods''. Another Dreamworks-film, The Prince of Egypt, had a far more powerful theme and storyline, and Pharoah Rameses I, and his father Seti, made for a much better King than Siam ever did. The Road To El Dorado had a lot more wit, the Prince of Egypt had a more successful integration of songs into a Biblical epic and Tarzan had a more experienced animations team. The King and I would've been a far better film if Walt Disney or Dreamworks took over from Warner Bros.