The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

Ruyard Kipling's epic of splendor , spectacle and high adventure at the top of a legendary world. It begins with some words which Rudyard Kipling pens in the opening scene are the opening lines to an actual Kipling poem, "The Ballad of Boh da Thone" that contains several elements which feature in the movie . The flick tells the tale of Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery's favorite film character , though John Huston also considered Richard Burton) and Peachy Carnahan (Michael Caine , though also was deemed Peter O'Toole) , two ex-soldiers in India when it was under British rule. Kipling (Christopher Plummer would have been dismissed early on by the producers but for Sean Connery's insistence that Plummer stay) who is seen as an important role that was there at the beginning and the ending , he advised about a dangerous journey . They decide to resign from the Army and set themselves up as deities in Kafiristan , a land where no white man has set foot since Alexander . There Daniel becomes a king and attempts to marry a princess (Shakira Caine, this is the only feature film to co-star Michael Caine and wife) under High Priest Kafu Selim (Karroom Ben Bouih was 103 years old when he made his first and only film appearance , when he saw some of the footage he declared that now he would live on forever.

Long live and spectacular adventure with an extraordinary duo , Connery and Caine , they form the best pair of all time . A glorious tale with two heroes who head off to Kafiristan in order to become Kings in their own right . John Huston tried to launch the film version of "The Man Who Would Be King" many times before completing it . It was originally conceived as a vehicle for Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart in the fifties, and later as a vehicle for Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. When it was considered as a vehicle for Robert Redford and Paul Newman, Newman suggested Sean Connery and Michael Caine . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Oswald Morris filmed in Pinewood studios with magnificent production design by Alexandre Trauner and shot on location Glen Canyon, Utah, USA , Grande Montée, Mont-Blanc, Chamonix , France ,Atlas Mountains, Morocco and at the Kasbah of Ait Benhaddou, just north of the southern Moroccan city of Ouarzazate ; this site was used in Gladiator as the North-African arena where Maximus first fights. Ouarzazate is known as "Morocco's Hollywood" since many international productions - such as Kingdom of Heaven and The Hills Have Eyes - were shot in the area. Imaginative as well as sensitive musical score composed and conducted by Maurice Jarre .

The motion picture well produced by John Foreman was stunningly by the great John Huston at his best . The picture was made in a good time of the 70s and 80s when Huston resurged as a director of quality films with Fat City, (1972), The man who would be king (1975) and Wise blood (1979). He ended his career on a high note with Under volcano (1984), the afore-mentioned Honor of Prizzi (1985) and Dublineses (1987). Rating : Above average , this is one of John Huston's best films , a model of his kind , definitely a must see if you are aficionado to adventure film . Huston broke a new ground with this landmark movie , providing classic scenes and unforgettable dialogs .

Fmovies: 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.

It took John Huston more than 20 years to bring one of his favorite stories, "The Man Who Would Be King," to the big screen. Originally, he had Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable in mind for the lead roles. Sean Connery and Michael Caine would end up in the roles. Overall, it was worth the wait.

Based on Rudyard Kipling's short story, "The Man Who Would Be King" is a tale set in the 1880s at the height of the British empire's rule in India. Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan (Connery and Caine respectfully) are two soldiers turned con men who decide to conquer Kafiristan, a remote section of Afghanistan. Once there, the two men plan to train the natives into an army, become rulers, and steal the country's treasure left behind by Alexander the Great. However, due to a misunderstanding, Daniel is crowned king and is seen as a possible god and descent of Alexander. Peachy wants to stick with the plan, but Daniel soon becomes consumed by his new power.

In a decade that evolved around the 'New Hollywood,' Huston was one of the very few filmmakers from the Studiio-era to be able to continue his craftsmanship and turn out some fine stories. In a way, "The Man Who Would Be King" is a big screen epic presented on a smaller scale. Despite all the breathtaking scenery and fine set pieces, it ultimately is a character driven story about two friends staying together until the end.

The performances of Connery and Caine rank among the best work from their distinguished careers. Christopher Plummer also gives a fine performance as Kipling himself. Huston, who always seemed to adapt other's materials successfully, achieved one of his most personal projects into fine perfection. With beautiful locations and a wonderful musical score by Maurice Jarre, "The Man Who Would Be King" is not only one of Huston's best, but is also one of the best films to come out from the 70s that still had a certain feel of stories that had a feel of a time long gone when film audiences were able to enjoy films that had everything. Adventure, comedy, drama, suspense, and so forth. I guess you could say 'They don't make them like they use to' after viewing this film from one of the great film mavericks of all time.

The Man Who Would Be King fmovies. 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.

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.

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.