The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

This is one of my favorite movies. Two crooks and adventurers, former English soldiers and members of Masonic lodge, travel from India to Kafiristan, where Europeans have not been seen since Alexander the Great, to conquer and become kings. Adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's novel with Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer.9/10

...but , certainly, seductive. because it gives well known things in the best package. because the "chemistry" between Connery and Caine is the pillar of an exotic story about desire, myth , chance and fall. and the key for a show who seems unique. so, one of films who diserves be time by time. for many reasons. for different states. for humour and old stories about vanity. and, sure, for two remarkable actors. so, almost perfect.

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.

What a peculiar story! It's almost a philosophical tale, and certainly not what I expected when I chose to watch this movie (I haven't read the original work). The Caine/Connery duo works terrifically well and is in my opinion the main attraction to "The man who would be king". Although the story was thrilling enough for me never to be bored, I thought that the direction lacked rhythm, especially in the first two thirds of the movie. In fact, I thought that this movie suffered from the same problem as some other literary adaptations that give the impression that they rest too much on their source material and struggle to find their own unity.I've always enjoyed "exotic" adventure stories, written at a time where a big part of the world could still be a mystery, even if it means putting up with the condescending attitude of the westerners of the time. Of course, today, the Victorian Englishmen are hardly less exotic to us than their oriental contemporaries. I don't know what the tone of Kipling's short story was, but the movie, at least, seemed to me to be watching the protagonists with a distance appropriate for our time, without, however, cutting us completely from any identification or empathy (it would have lost much of its impact otherwise). In a few words, I had a lot of fun watching this movie, but I didn't find it memorable. The actors' performances, on the other hand, are (the actor playing Billy Fish was excellent, too!) and they're well worth the watch.