Rating: 
Summary: This Movie is a Masterpiece
Review: Someone who reviewed this splendid John Huston movie referred to it as "dated" and not "politically correct" (BALONEY!!). I wonder what her reaction to "The Bible" was! This is pure entertainment based on superb acting, minus special effects and is based on a thoroughly enjoyable Rudyard Kipling story that doesn't lose it's relevance in the 21st century. The chemistry between the principal actors is phenomenal. There are other reviews in which a descriptive synopsis is stated among the opinions so I'll spare everyone a re-telling of the same story. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
Rating:
Summary: One of the forgotten great films
Review: This is the story of two men journeying to a country that is completely isolated from all others. The men are on a morally questionable quest with the objective of becoming kings of this country.This is an epic story of how the two men's motivations for becoming king head down different paths. One seeks wealth and the other seeks more. This movie is completely brilliant in every way, and it is a wonder that it does not receive more recognition as a masterpiece. Perhaps I am missing something in this movie. Anyway, you have my opinion and quite a few others. This movie will be well worth the price of a rental.
Rating:
Summary: Best of the Best of Adventure films!
Review: Oh, God, I am SO tired of reading other people reviews with the same line: "It's DATED." SO WHAT? By that thinking, any movie made pre-2003 is "dated." And "politically correct?" Puhleeeeze. Enjoy it, make up your own minds and revel in movie-making at it's finest. Kipling, Huston and Michael Caine and Sean Connery; brilliant cast and director, et al. The story is told in flashback, and the opening sequence is riveting, as is, IMHO, the entire movie. Caine met the ravishing Shakira, who became his wife. Connery and Caine are a match made in Heaven as they fight their way to the top, and the treasure, and eventually meet their Fate in their quest to be "King(s)." It is a fascinating journey, replete with battles, and a grisly soccer match, and many great peripheral characters, my favorite being Saeed Jaffrey, as Billy Fish. The Monks are Holy Terrors, pardon the pun, and one does not wish to journey to their territory or make their acquaintance. They are not as they seem, and not the gentle, Holy men one is led to believe initially. When they find Connery to be a mere Mortal...but see the movie. The photography and the sheer scope of the film is breathtaking, as is the scenery; you will be transported to another place and time, great escape fare, even though it was made in 1975. GEE! A good movie made BEFORE 2003! Amazing! Pop the popcorn, relax, and enjoy...and decide for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Good adventure story, but not for modern audiences
Review: John Huston directed this 1975 film, which is based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling who was a journalist in India from 1887-1889. Those were the years that the sun never set on the British Empire, and the colonialist perspective is taken for granted. It's about former British soldiers played by Sean Connery and Michael Caine, who, with twenty guns and a spirit of adventure, set out to conquer the fictional area known as Kafiristan by introducing firearms, conquering warring tribes and setting themselves up as kings in order to plunder riches. However, when local religious leaders believe that Connery is a God, there is conflict between the two men. Trouble follows. Filmed in Morocco with a cast of thousands, the cinematography is excellent. John Huston sure does know how to set up a scene. There's a lot of adventure and lots of bloodshed. And warfare orchestrated as fun and games. None of it is politically correct, especially since everyone, with the exception of the Englishmen, are depicted an ignorant fools. This bothered me even though I understand that the story came from another era. All the acting was uniformly good, with Christopher Plummer cast as Rudyard Kipling and Shakira Caine, a former Miss Guyana, cast as the woman who wins Connery's heart. The DVD had one good extra, depicting the cast on location and the actual filming of one of the most outrageous and dangerous stunts. The only way to enjoy this film is not to take it too seriously and let yourself be transported into a world that not only is no more, but that never was. The story had enough twists and turns to hold my attention but it was just too dated for my taste. Perhaps it might have been acceptable when it was first written more than a hundred years ago, and perhaps the audience in 1975 liked it. But it just doesn't fly in 2003.
Rating:
Summary: Epitaph for an Empire
Review: Well, he may have been that, up to a point, but he was also a genius, a prophet and a seer, as this tale, and an excellent film adaptation, clearly demonstrate. All Kipling's works are multi-layered, and this is no exception. On the surface it's a rollicking tale of highly improbable adventure. It is also an allegory of the causes, rise and decline of Empire, as well as an allegory of religion. Caine and Connery personify the warm-hearted blackguards who grabbed the largest empire that the world had known. Their rise to the top of the Kafiristan heap mirrors the way the British took control of those parts of the globe that didn't have rifles. They then turned into lawgivers and judges. But they were always outnumbered, and therefore vulnerable when their subjects saw them for what they were, just human beings like the rest of us. They might have stayed as kings, provided they didn't fall out with one another, and provided they didn't get too divine. The religious allegory goes deeper. If you want to be a god, you can't act human, and succumb to carnal lusts, or behave like a mortal. If they see you bleed, they'll crucify you --- the hard route to divinity. I don't know anything about Freemasonry, so won't attempt to explain how that fits in, except to show that men ought to be brotherly towards each other. One reviewer complained that Kafiristan was shot in North Africa. So what? Does he know where Kafiristan is? Kafir is an African ethnic term, and -stan is applied to Middle Eastern countries. The masonic idol didn't look like anything from anywhere. The priests seemed to have strayed in from Nepal or Tibet. This was a neverland, symbolic of all the countries taken over by the British in the 19th century. The parts were played perfectly. I cannot imagine how American actors could possibly have reproduced so exactly the type of British humour, doggedness, durability, unsentimentality, steadiness, sheer guts, and underhandedness of these two extremely dubious but bold and venturesome characters. Plummer was also incredibly good as Kipling. Houston managed to capture the spirit of the story very accurately. Five stars.
Rating:
Summary: Memorable
Review: THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING is an excellent adventure film set in the nineteenth century about two opportunists who conspire to gain control of a small mountain kingdom in Central Asia. It is based on a Rudyard Kipling story. The movie is directed by John Huston. Sean Connery and Michael Caine play the parts of the two adventurers while Christopher Plummer has a small role as Rudyard Kipling. The motion picture drags in spots but overall it is quite memorable. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING won Oscar nominations in 1975 for Best Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, Art Direction and Editing. In that same year ONE FLEW OVER THE CUKOO'S NEST received the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Rating: 
Summary: One Star For The DVD!!!
Review: Great movie. Unfortunately, you have to FLIP OVER THE DVD half-way through the film. LAME!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Different Version
Review: Although this is my favorite film, the DVD is severely lacking. I dislike the flipping, as previous reviewers mentioned, BUT, the DVD version is DIFFERENT than the VHS version. I think it may be a British version as some dialogue is different (e.g., sporan instead of moneybag). THAT is OK, even interesting, BUT, at the end, there is a critical scene missing of a charachter falling in somewhat slow motion while Caine narrarates. It is one of my favorite scenes and is missing completely from the film. I do not even watch my DVD because of this but just rely on my well-worn VHS copy. Hopefully they will put out another edition someday. Very disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: "It was detriments like us that built this bloody Empire!"
Review: John Huston's The Man Who Would Be King is a film that both celebrates the adventuresome spirit of the nineteenth-century and illustrates everything that was wrong with British colonialism. The film is based upon the famous Rudyard Kipling tale and follows the exploits of Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery). The two men hatch a plan where they will travel to Kafiristan and employ their wits and battle knowledge to become kings of Kafiristan. Skirmish after skirmish ensues and after one particular battle, Dravot survives being shot by an arrow and is presumed to be a god. Peachy and Dravot exploit this misunderstanding to the fullest and use their new stature to plunder the riches of Kafiristan. However, Dravot soon falls victim to his own human frailities and both he and Peachy are exposed as the fruads that they are. The rise and fall of Peachy and Dravot mirrors in microcosm the actual rise and fall of the British Colonial Empire itself. The subjugation of the natives leads to a brutal reckoning once the con men's motives are revealed to be less than noble just like the brutal reckoning the Empire experienced when the rest of the world adopted a more enlightened stance toward colonies the world over. In this sense, The Man Who Would Be King functions as a cautionary tale on the dual evils of racism and exploitation. Don't get the sense that this film is a heavy-handed "message" film though. Much credit must be given to Huston for managing to keep this film an adventuresome piece of mainstream entertainment despite its darker elements. Caine and Connery give great star turns as the dishonest schemers and we're overjoyed to be accompanying them on their trecherous journey into Kafiristan. When the film is over, we're depressed that their endless enthusiasm couldn't have been directed to more noble pursuits, but we're still glad we took the journey with them.
Rating:
Summary: Danny and Peachy capture your heart
Review: Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, John Houston....four of the biggest talents of our lifetime that came together to give you very special film. One so emotionally moving and involving I have a very hard time watching it, but then I likely hold the Guinness records on repeat views for Braveheart...so I tell myself I won't watch it again, but end up doing it. Based on a Rudyard Kipling story, it is full of exotic locates, adventure, and such warm humour, under the master John Houston's direction. Houston had this in mind originally for Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart (not to knock them, but total miscasting), then later was going to do it with Butch and Sundance (Paul Newman and Robert Redford in typically Hollywood style of going for names rather than perfect actors for the roles). Fortunately, Newman had the insight to pass on it and suggested going with the pairing that was absolute perfect as Danny and Peachy. Caine had showed as Bromhead in Zulu, that he had the proper mien for a man in a red coat and pith helmet, and we know Connery can do anything given the crack. Since both are personal friends off screen, their on screen charisma comes is amplified by the fact the two men who actually like each other, giving good foundation in which to bring Danny and Peachy alive. Danny and Peachy decide they have had enough with soldering for the British Empire and think it a marvellous idea to go forth into the world and find a forgotten corner and create their own,
and the most forgotten place they can find on the map is Kafiristan. There they plan to become rich as kings. It is a super adventure getting there, but after the reach the small country, the lark turns into something more, with Danny taking being King Quite serious. Look for a cameo of Mrs. Caine playing the woman to wed Connery.
It just does not get any better than this, with fine fine acting, writing and directing. Just have a hankie near for the ending.
|
