Reviews & Ratings for
The Man Who Would Be King More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

141 reviews in total

---

108 out of 160 people found the following review useful:
This story is about a real place!, 8 March 2004
Author: Sam Sloan (samsloan) from Bronx, NY, United States

What most viewers do not realize about The Man Who Would Be King (1975) is that it is not about a legendary place, although Rudyard Kipling may have thought so when he wrote the story, because no white man had ever been there and returned to tell about it.

The place was then known as Kafiristan and is now known as Nuristan. It is in Eastern Afghanistan next to Chitral, which is in Northwest Pakistan.

Place names in the movie, such as Kamdesh and Bashgal, are real places in Nuristan. The explorer Robertson, whom Billy Fish reports has having died, did not die in real life but was rescued by a British military force in 1895, after Kipling wrote his story.

The people of Nuristan are believed to be descendants of Alexander the Great, who came there in 328 BC, just as the movie states. They had a pagan religion as the movie describes until they were forcibly converted to Islam in 1892. There are still some believers of the old religion in the Kalash Valleys of Pakistan.

For more about these people see http://www.samsloan.com/damik.htm

I know about all this because I have been there and I married a woman named Honzagool there. She did not bite me as did the wife of Sean Connery in the movie, however.

Sam Sloan

---

75 out of 95 people found the following review useful:
No film is closer to perfect, 17 May 1999

Author: Slime-3 from Gloucester, England

Take the story from a master like Kipling, give it to a director of classics like THE AFRICAN QUEEN, add a superb script that crackles with wit and cast two of the greatest modern day screen actors in roles that fit them like gloves. The result comes as near to the perfect action-adventure film as you will ever find. Kipling's rousing tale of two British soldiers in the days of high Empire keeps a tight hold of the viewer throughout. The twists of the tale are fascinating, the characters mesmerizing, the whole concept is so ingenious and full of potential that with such a team it simply cannot miss! Caine & Connery are superb together, oozing charisma and obviously enjoying themselves greatly as the two British NCOs.It's possible that neither has ever produced work to match what you will see here, it's wonderful to watch. Huston's direction is top drawer and the feeling of claustrophobic Indian market places and dusty railways stations is so strong it's a relief when the two heroes of the story make their ways into the wilderness to conquer a territory and "be kings". "Billie Fish", the stranded Ghurka soldier that the pair encounter high in the mountains produces a fine characterisation by Jaffery . His eye-rolling expressions and comic timing are inch perfect in his performance throughout. Perfect too is Christopher Plummer as Kipling himself. Indeed so convincing is he as this most archetypal Englishman that one is reminded how Huston considered casting to be the most important element of his job - to paraphrase, if you find the right actor for the role, he needs no direction! I can't think of a film that more consistantly proves how right he was!

Through battles, politics, greed and jealousy the two would-be kings gallop untill the final memorable explosive showdown. The last scene is perhaps the most effective and memorable of all. True pathos which tugs strongly at the heartstrings. A fitting end to a marvelous film.

---

61 out of 77 people found the following review useful:
Exactly the kind of movie that they don't make anymore, 27 December 2002

Author: kcrawford from Washington, DC

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Truly, truly brilliant. It is so rare that I see a film that I wouldn't change, and I honestly can't think of a thing. Huston's films so often include that quintessential scene -- the one where his characters realize that they've lost everything, and respond with unbridled true character. Those who cry or bemoan the loss are beyond redemption. But those who can laugh in the face of disaster, who can ask forgiveness for the patently unforgivable -- they are the greatest of Huston's figures, and perhaps the greatest characters of cinema. Just as Bogart and Hepburn laugh while they lie in the bottom of a boat awaiting death, Michael Caine and Sean Connery face certain death in this film and respond with complete honesty and complete honor. For all of their lies and arrogant ambitions, they are still a pair of b*****ds you would love to know.

Which brings me to the two incredible performances. It is nearly impossible for such recognizable actors to fade into the guise of their characters. But Caine and Connery manage it, and with perfect aplomb. As best friends, they are perfectly inseparable, and their innate connection makes for one of the most affecting male friendships in history. Surrounded, with no reasonable hope in the world, Danny asks Peachy to forgive him for being "so bleeding high and so bloody mighty." And, of course, Peachy forgives him. These are men who sing boldly in the last moments of life. God bless John Huston.

---

64 out of 84 people found the following review useful:
Unforgettable., 27 December 1998

Author: PJK from Pittsburgh, PA, USA

The greatest "buddy film" of all time. What makes this so? First off, casting two real life friends, Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Second, all other "buddy films" are simply comedies. And while the Man Who Would Be King has some laughs in it, and Connery and Caine bounce off of each other almost as good as Abbott and Costello, the story itself is a drama. And what a drama it is. Two English soldiers set out to be the rulers of a country, but can anyone who was a grunt one day, and a king the next, become a King without getting an inflated ego? The answer is no and that becomes the ultimate test for these two friends. Terrific performances by Caine, Connery and even Christopher Plummer, who gives a brief, but good performance as Rudyard Kipling, the man who wrote the short story this film was based on. This film features perhaps the greatest ending to a movie ever made. You will never forget it, and you will wish that you had a friendship as strong as these two individuals.

---

58 out of 78 people found the following review useful:
Not the recognition it deserves, 15 January 2002

Author: Arangalad from Stockholm, Sweden

For some reason, every time they decide to show this movie on a Swedish TV channel, they do so in the middle of the night, when everyone's asleep. I'm getting angry everytime I see that: because this is a great movie that hasn't really got much recognition (maybe it's like this only here in Sweden). You shouldn't have to miss out a movie this good just because you haven't heard of it.

That said, I will concentrate more on the movie. It's based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling, but this is one of the few occurances where I find the film better. It's an amazing story set in India from when it was under British rule. As the main characters we see Sean Connery and Michael Caine, and they do great roles. I'd always known Sean Connery was a great actor, but I hadn't seen Caine's potential until I saw this movie. Their characters' friendship makes this a warming movie, but at moments it's also quite sad. Besides Connery and Caine, it has many memorable characters, like Christopher Plumming as Kipling.

Stan Huston directs, and I think it shows. The environments for example, really are outstanding; the icy mountains, the crowded market and the Pakistan deserts. When I had finished watching I was overwhelmed, it felt like one of the greatest stories ever told, much like the feeling I had after watching Lawrence of Arabia and Dersu Uzala. There's really nothing that goes against this movie, and needless to say I gave it 10/10.

---

40 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
Grand Adventure, Huston-style!, 30 November 2003
Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada

No director ever personalized a genre the way John Huston could. While some critics have claimed his style was a 'lack' of style, the opposite is actually true; his sense of irony, love of the absurd, respect for personal codes of honor, and twist endings that always remind us that the true value of a journey is not arriving at a destination, but in the 'getting there' all set apart his best work from that of his contemporaries. Even his lesser work has value, and his best films, which certainly includes THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, are unforgettable.

The tragicomic tale of two ex-Sergeants turned confidence men with a grand scheme to fleece a near-legendary kingdom had been a 'pet' project of Huston's since the forties, and he'd spent years tinkering with the script, planning to film it with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart in the leads. With Bogart's death in 1957, he'd considered various other match-ups (including Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole), until he found the ideal pair, in Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Connery had just finished the spectacular THE WIND AND THE LION (in which Huston played a small, but memorable role), and the Scot had often been compared to Gable with his dark good looks, machismo, and lack of pretense. Michael Caine, a long-time friend of Connery, was one of the industry's busiest actors, and had already proved himself adept at playing both soldiers and con men. Together, Connery and Caine had a camaraderie and chemistry that even Gable and Bogart couldn't have equaled, and Huston was "quite pleased".

Christopher Plummer was another inspired piece of casting, as the legendary author Rudyard Kipling. Bookish, with a keen intellect and rich sense of humor, Plummer's Kipling, sharing Masonic ties with the future 'Kings', is the perfect foil for the duo, offering sound advice which they totally disregard, with a wink and a smile. As Dravot (Connery) tells him, "We are not little men", and India, bound up in British bureaucracy (as well as becoming too 'hot' for them) could never provide the immensity of riches they dreamed of.

Huston eschewed the 'traditional' approach to adventure films, with cardboard heroes performing near-impossible deeds until the inevitable 'happy ending', and grounded his story in reality, which disappointed any viewers hoping KING would simply be a variation of GUNGA DIN. But in not romanticizing the story, he gives it a sense of immensity and the exotic, a richness of character, and an understanding of human frailties that far surpasses a typical Hollywood product. While Dravot orchestrates the pair's ultimate ruin by taking his 'godhood' too seriously (as he turns 'noble', trying to bring order to his 'kingdom', and decides to start a dynasty by taking a wife), you can understand why Carnehan (Caine), seeing their 'get rich' scheme disintegrate, would be anxious to leave, but also why he would forgive his friend, when they face torture and certain death. Loyalty, to Huston, is not lip service, but a true measure of a man. While Dravot and Carnehan are certainly not role models, their love and respect for each other transcends their faults, even their lives, putting the film's final scene, as a physically crushed Carnehan leaves his 'bundle' for Kipling, into perspective. It is a moment you won't soon forget.

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING proves, yet again, why John Huston, as he once described his friend, Humphrey Bogart, is "irreplaceable".

---

32 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
Adventure! Excitement! Exotic Locales! You too can experience these in the Queen's Army!, 29 November 2004
Author: Jason Forestein (jay4stein79@yahoo.com) from somerville, ma

My friend threw this DVD at my head one night while we were arguing about film. I said all adventure movies left me feeling a little hollow - adventure movies tended to abandon story, really, in favor of plot (important distinction: stories are interesting, plots boring; consequently a film with a story to tell is better than a movie with a plot to move forward). I think he hurled the disc at me out of pure frustration with my point of view. In doing so, he also won the argument.

The Man Who Would Be King is the single greatest adventure film I've ever seen. It's a story - It's a tale - It's not a series of plot developments (to me, to go further with this plot/story dichotomy, a plot is mechanical (and sometimes that machine is well-oiled) while a story is organic and feels less contrived (though the story, as organic matter sometimes is, can be rotten)). It's a very good story at that. The Man Who Would Be King (I believe as a result of its derivation from Kipling) has a depth and development of character that is foreign to most adventure tales. Few films are as rousing as this and few films that are this rousing have nearly as much to say about mankind.

John Huston, of course, is a master of instilling greatness into traditionally tedious genres. He transformed the mystery, the western, the swashbuckler. Why not the adventure story too? As evidenced in The Maltese Falcon and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Huston can take what might wind up a plot and transform it into a story. He understands that characters - human, conflicted, devious characters - are essential to creating genre pictures that transcend their genre. Without Huston, this film would have undoubtedly faltered; his steady and determined hand guides this film from the hazards of superficiality without sacrificing entertainment and adventure.

He does not create a great film single-handedly though, as Connery and Caine, who both give tremendous performances, bestow upon Peachy and Daniel immense likability despite their scoundrel airs. Caine proves again why he may be the greatest living British actor and Connery reminds us that there's more to him than 007.

As I said, this is one of the greatest adventure tales brought to the screen. Though some may disagree, in particular my friend who threw the DVD at my head, it's better than any of the late 30s swashbucklers and better than most shoot-em-ups made since.

---

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Great story, great acting and great fun, 30 December 2002
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Danny and Peaches are two officers in the British army who find themselves at a loss when their services are no longer required in Asia. While blackmailing a local Raj, the pair are exposed by author Rudyard Kipling and brought before an officer. They are warned but released. Later the visit Kipling to get him to witness a contract for their latest plan – to become kings of a small country by training a village to conquer the rest of the villages and then leave months later with riches. The conquest begins in earnest, but when Danny's vigour in battle makes him appear to be a god to the villagers new dangers are introduced.

I have seen two interviews recently with the two leads (separately) and both time clips of this film were shown that made me think `I must watch that again'. Come Christmas and the repeats on all channels gave me the chance to see it. I had forgotten just how funny the film is and it really helps the film to be an enjoyable adventure to add to the dark edges. The plot is from a Kipling story so it is of a good stock and stands up well. The addition of humour is well pitched and really helps.

It is a great adventure story, with a cautionary twist in the tale and can be enjoyed on all levels. The directing is as good as you'd hope from Huston but what really made the film for me was the two leads on top form. Both Connery and Caine have a great chemistry and totally convince as the old school military types. They bring the roles to life and make them enjoyable and get us behind them effortlessly. Admittedly most of the support cast are only jabbering natives who aren't allowed characters with the odd exception. Plummer is good in a minor role but this is the Connery/Caine show all the way.

Overall this is a great story that is well told by director Huston. The film is made even better by the gentle camaraderie between Connery and Caine and the good vein of humour that underpins the strong story and quite downbeat climax to Caine's story.

---

25 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
A work of genius, 7 June 2003
Author: j_loome from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Outside of the obvious reflections on the immoral and absurdly hypocritical nature of early British colonialism, it's just a damn entertaining movie.

But you have to think that Rudyard Kipling, who grew up under British rule in India, was certainly trying to shake some sensibilities when he first wrote the story as part of an 1890 package called The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories, nearly a century before it was made into a film and during an era when the British Empire was still very much a reality.

From the perceptive realization that even the staunchly important Masonic Lodge -- which had infilitrated every aspect of Britain's upper classes -- could be easily corrupted; to the arrogance as Sean Connery's character Daniel Dravot, who elevates what he sees as mere social superiority into a god-like status; to the inevitable humbling of both men at the hands of the 'savages' they profess to rule, the film is ultimately about the humility all men should exhude, particularly in the face of the unfamiliar.

Kipling's tale also preached tolerance, though you might not consider that to be the case based on the film's climax: consider that if Daniel and Peachy had shown an iota of respect for the religion that they instead decided to fleece, how differently the tale might have played out.

The film owes much of its success to the chemistry between Caine and Connery, who regardless of later plaudits, gave the finest performances of their careers. Connery is particularly nuanced, with Daniel Dravot starting the tale as a somewhat lackwitted second fiddle to the scheming Peachy but later seeing his limited vision help him surpass his friend in terms of villainy with an equally heavy price. Caine plays, to some degree or another, the same charming British sheyster/teddy boy he popularized in the Harry Palmer films. But without a backdrop of similarly disaffected cockney bad guys, it's stunningly effective.

John Huston's direction is among the best of his career, and in terms of his ability to use both sprawling vistas and tight, almost claustrophobic photography, owes a nod to his earlier work, including The African Queen, Night of the Iguana and the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. As examples, witness the zenith of Peachy and Daniel's hazardous trek through the mountains played out in full panoramic detail, only to be followed 90 minutes later by the tight shot of Kipling's face, the revulsion fairly etched into every crease as we reach the climax.

But perhaps the true hero of this film was Boaty Boatright, who also cast Connery's classic "The Wind and The Lion." He managed to take some of the most strident, forceful personalities in the film industries, threw them together and came up with a film about humility. Magic.

---

20 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Superb cinematography... Sweeping score... Great acting..., 6 September 2005

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'The Man Who Would Be King' takes us back to Queen Victoria's India and the ambitions of two former sergeants in Her Majesty's army to set up their own empire... The story begins as a crippled old beggar gets into Kipling's editorial office at the Northern Star in Lahore late one night and unfolds an incredible story...

The pitiful beggar is actually Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine), or rather, what is left of Peachy, now so disfigured and a little insane...

Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer), after the shock of recognition, recalls their first meeting, when Peachy stole his watch several years earlier on a crowded train station... He introduces his friend Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) to him and explains their plans to conquer the primitive areas of northern India and set themselves up as rulers...

Later, the two likable Army buddies tell Kipling something of themselves: "The less said about our professions, the better, for we have been most things in our time. We have been all over India. We know her cities and her jungles, her palaces and her jails." To which Peachy adds: "Therefore we're going away to another place where a man isn't crowded and can come into his own. We're not little men and there's nothing we're afraid of."

'The Man Who Would Be King' is an ambitious fable, with superb cinematography, a sweeping score, an Oscar-nominated script and great acting...

Caine's wife, Shakira, makes her screen debut, playing a beautiful maiden who turns the head of Connery...

---

---

Page 1 of 15:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history