DonAlberto It is said, quite often, that good cinema is like a good stew: it smells good but it tastes even better. I'm yet to chew into the DVD of The man who would be king -I'm not planning on doing so- but I've definitely caught its sniff. It's one I don't want to let go easily; on the contrary, I'd like it to keep it with me, to seep into my brain so it can cheer me up when I need it, or pull me together when I'm deep in the blue.And it is also said by specialists and cinema buffs alike that the adventure genre took a jump into a new era after the release of this film. And they're right. Today's adventure films are dominated by either blockbuster productions that special effects at the cost of a good plot or by action-packaged films in the line of Pacific Rim. The man who would be king is neither of these. Quite the opposite, in fact. A great, well-written and crammed with twists and turns adventure is the base of this flick. It is the story of two soldiers of the British Empire, as cheeky, greedy, and fun as the come, that have the pipe dream of becoming kings of Kifiristan, an unexplored region of the world.John Huston wanted to cast Bogart and Gable for the roles but, due to the death of the first, the roles went to Michael Caine and Sean Connery. The result couldn't have been better as they are a perfect fit for this story. And if you're asking yourself the question...yes, there is a moral at then end of the film. If I gave it away so easel y, I wouldn't be much of a reviewer, would I?

slightlymad22 The Man Who Would Be King (1975)Plot In A Paragraph: Daniel Dravot (Connery) and Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) are two British soldiers in India. 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 The Great.Hands down Sean Connery's best movie of the 1970's. It could be the best movie he had made at this point. An argument could even be made that it's his best movie EVER. It is certainly his best performance. He is simply superb. I think the Academy were blind not to nominate him. I'm not saying he should have won, as Jack Nicholson was superb in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest. But he should have been nominated. Connery and Caine were a good double act as the inseparable rogues, who dabbled in blackmail and gunrunning, and were the best of friends, the type of mates, whom you'd go to your death, fighting beside. Caine dominates the first hour, Connery the second. If I have any complaints, it's that Caine hams it up a little too much early on. Connery hard the harder role of the two, especially when he became to believe his own myth, first as another Alexander The Great and then thinking he was a god. He truly was growing with every movie he made outside of Bond to become a brilliant actor.Christopher Plummer was great as Kipling, and I also enjoyed Saeed Jaffrey as Billy Fish too.If you have not seen this, I highly recommend it. The Man Who Would Be King only grossed $11 million at the domestic box office. A real shame as it is brilliant.

tomsview I was surprised to read that when the film was first released some critics thought that Michael Caine infused too much humour into "The Man Who Would be King". However, there were others who thought the whole thing was simply a brilliant return to form by director John Huston. I'm with them. The plot, based on Rudyard Kipling's short story, has two ex-sergeants of the Indian Army, Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) and Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine), setting off from British India in the late 19th-century to seek their fortune in Kafiristan."We are not little men", Carnehan tells Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer) before setting off on their quest, and this isn't a little movie; it has size to spare. Of course these days, 50 years later, "The Man Who Would be King" is as politically incorrect as they come; it probably was in 1975 when Huston made it, but not so much in 1888 when Rudyard Kipling wrote the story and the British Raj still ruled.However, for those who can see it as the pure adventure it was intended to be, it is a unique experience. It has similarities with "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Both films feature two buddies pushing their luck outside the law, but who have each other's backs despite the occasional disagreement.As for Caine's comedy? Peachy is an irrepressible cockney who can see the irony in the worst situation; he keeps things in perspective even when Danny overreaches himself. The critics who didn't appreciate the light touch Caine brought to the film couldn't have read the Kipling story - much of the dialogue and that grandiose turn of phrase is sourced directly from there.Huston added a lot of business to the story. It's as though Kipling composed the broad notes of the symphony, but Huston added the orchestral colour.And the music? Maurice Jarre's score blends orchestral and Eastern instruments; at once mysterious, intimate and triumphant. He also incorporated the hymn "The Son of God Goes Forth to War" set to the tune of "The Minstrel Boy", which Peachy actually sings at the very end of Kipling's short story. It was another inspired touch in an inspired movie.Huston made more than his fair share of masterpieces including "The Man Who Would be King". He could also write, he could act, he could be a tyrant and he could be a charmer; one thing's for sure though, he was not a little man.

Mike Guratza Films are meant to entertain. Not in a cheap sense, not in a higher sense. Everything else is welcomed, but that's what they should do first and foremost.And I can't really thing of a more entertaining film than this. I can't even think for the slightest of reasons why someone would walk out of a theater without satisfaction after watching this movie.An absolute 10/10. Both actors are excellent, John Houston is a legend, there's not even the slightest milli-second of tediousness in this film.Watching it, I was wishing it would never end.