User Reviews

It's interesting to look through the negative reviews of The Man Who Would Be King. Those submitted twenty years ago reflect the range of subjective response you might expect from any film. Move forward to those submitted in the last few years and a common theme arises. The film is "unwatchable" because it portrays people in a colonial era with a colonial perspective. Somehow it's assumed that the writer casting forth this judgement somehow from birth knew all that is right and just and can, without a shred of arrogance or hypocrisy, see clearly the sins of the past and guide the rest of us as to what is correct and incorrect for us to allow our weak eyes and ears to take in or avoid so that we can also live a similarly enlightened life.

Someday I hope those who so arrogantly seek to cancel or at least condemn any film from an earlier era that did not by some miracle anticipate what would be politically correct in 2022 will gain some humility. Hopefully they will then finally come to recognize that they too suffer from the flawed human condition and are blind to what the next generation will someday condemn them for.

If you want to see how great filmmaking was done before digital technology made it easy to create any setting, this is a great film to watch. If you want to see how people viewed the world in the colonial era - and - of you want to understand how those who lived through the Great Depression and WWII sought to portray the colonial era, this is a great film to watch. It's also a well told story if you have the ability to follow a story that unfolds slowly and doesn't flash from one action scene to another.

However, if you are like those who led the cultural revolution in China and believe that history must be eradicated or revised, I guess this is one of the cultural artifacts that must be destroyed. If that's you, I'll save you the time. You can add this to your censor list.

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 .

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".

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.

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.

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.

This memorable story is based on a Rudyard Kipling tale and features Christopher Plummer in a bookended role as the author himself. However, the main thrust of the narrative concerns the exploits of two ex-army rogues and their efforts to rule a remote corner of a kingdom that lies in modern day Afghanistan.

The film itself is an out and out comedy and both Michael Caine and Sean Connery play it to the hilt as the impossible to dislike scoundrels. Watching the story unfold, you're aware that it can only end in disaster but that doesn't make the telling of it any the less entertaining. It's refreshingly old-fashioned in that the story evolves from the nuances of the two leads and that they're far from the clear-cut heroes of many lesser adventure films.

It's also worth singling out Saeed Jaffrey in his role as the loyal Billy Fish - an excellent supporting performance if ever there was one.

Based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Would Be King tells the story of two friends; Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) and Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) that go to Kafiristan in order to rule the country as kings and become rich in the process. The tale itself if relatively simple, but through great storytelling, the film is lifted into the realms of the masterpiece. The Man Who Would Be King tells a story on two levels; on the one hand, it's an epic masterpiece, spanning across Asia and embracing the Eastern culture, but on the other hand; it's a simple tale of two friends that are out for all they can get. The film switches between the two sides of it's story with great ease, and the smaller, more intimate side of the story is actually complimented by the epic battle sequences that run alongside it.

This movie is headed by two of the very finest actors of all time - Sean Connery and Michael Caine (both British too, I might add). The two have a great chemistry, and seeing them on screen together is an absolute treat. Both actors have a very defined style as to how they act and how their lines are delivered; in fact, they're perhaps two of the most defined styles ever, and they play off each brilliantly to give fantastic performances in this movie. Michael Caine always seems to be more willing to give a better performance when he is on screen with another fine actor, and they don't come much finer than Sean Connery. The great John Huston directs the movie, and this is easily one of his best movies. In fact, I rate it as his number one colour film. He's got a good story to work with, and he makes the best of it, not to mention that he gets the best from his cast. Many of the locations are fabulous and the battle sequences, although not on the same scale as some other films of the same nature, are well choreographed and an epic sense is captured through the utilisation of many extras.

This film is a masterpiece. All the players have come together to create a film that is both intimate, intelligent, interesting and on a massive scale all at the same time. A must see.

From the casting to the cinematography to the sweeping story, this film is genuinely a classic. Connery and Caine have chemistry that is real on the screen. They are so believable that I cared about these scoundrels throughout the film. Amazing tale that has to be seen and dwelt upon before watching adventure movies set in the exotic unknown.

One of my favorite adventure films. Please see it.

The Man Who Would be King is simply wonderful in every sense of the word. John Huston is a terrific director, and his direction is masterly as he matches character to action in adept fashion. Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer are all fine actors, and all three are superb with brilliantly written characters, Connery in particular gives one of his most charismatic performances here. The film looks wonderful, with evocative locations and stunning cinematography. Maurice Jarre's score is very stirring, and while not his best(Lawrence of Arabia) it is up there. The script is sly, the story is riveting, the pace is spot on and the ending gives another meaning to the word pathos. Overall, it is a superb film and one of the best films of a fine director. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Big time, old fashioned adventure film based on Kipling. Caine and Connery perfect as greedy scoundrels who trek from India to Kafiristan. Intend to hoodwink the natives, seize the treasure, return to England dripping wealth. Oh, the best laid plans . . . Stunning photography (shot in Morocco's mountains), magical sense of time and place. Bit slow at times (Star Wars came out two years later, Raiders Lost Ark in '81.), and felt quaint when it came out. Noteworthy for the lack of gore or gratuitous violence.

In the brief documentary, director John Huston commented that he had hoped to shoot this years earlier with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart, but both died. Thinking about it, this could have been made in the 40s with Errol Flynn and David Niven.

I love Rudyard Kipling stories, Huston is usually great, the key cast members are usually great, but something in this mix turned a great short story into an incredible snoozefest.

I saw it at the drive-in a few years after it first came out. We all fell asleep. I tried watching it on TV many years later. We all fell asleep.

There are some good parts, but they're spread so thin over a long and boring timescape that it's just too hard to maintain any interest. It's much like watching the video equivalent of a technical document in which you have only passing interest.

I can't believe this is scoring an 8 out of 10 on average.

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

Sometimes Huston seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel. It's hard to believe that he made a movie like "Annie" for any reasons other than financial. But his winners are first-rate. I'll only mention "The Maltese Falcon," "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," and "The African Queen" in passing. Hardly anybody seems to be turning out well-crafted work like this anymore, pieces in which plot, character, and atmosphere cohere.

"The Man Who Would Be King" is a fine example of Huston at or near his best. It is completely without pretense -- a kind of blustering, masculine, tragicomedy with two superb actors in the leads and fine support by Christopher Plummer as Brother Kipling. Nothing that Caine or Connery feel seems to be more than an inch deep. Stranded on a snowy mountaintop in the Hindu Kush, they sit around a dying campfire discussing how they're going to kill themselves, since they will otherwise slowly freeze to death. "Let's wait till the fire goes out," suggests Caine, "and I'll do the necessary." Connery muses, "Peachy, do you think our lives have been misspent?" "Well," replies Caine, "I wouldn't say the world is a better place for our having been IN it." They start laughing as they reminisce, provoking a life-saving snow avalanche.

They are clever, treacherous, greedy, and very human. They've taken a serious vow against the use of women or liquor until they've completed their plan of robbing some remote tribe of natives "six ways from Sunday." Learning that they have no interest in sleeping with his daughters, a friendly chieftain suggests that maybe some boys would do the trick, sending the heroes into a Victorian dudgeon.

I can't carry on much more about the jokes or about the underlying theme, which is pretty sad. Hubris, the Greeks would have called it, defying the gods and presuming to rise above your station. The lawyers might have called it lex loci. Having been proclaimed king, Connery tells Caine, "I'll be going now. You mortals remain outside." Connery breaks his vow where women are concerned and marries the lusciously exotic Roxanne (Caine's wife at the time). The spirit grew ever weaker and the flesh was all too willing.

Neither Caine nor Connery has ever disgraced or damaged a movie they've been in, although the reverse hasn't always been the case. They're not exactly heroes here, either. Huston and his writers were unsentimental. The two are racists. Caine throws an affable Indian gentleman off the train -- "Outside, Baboo!" -- and Huston treats it as a comic incident. That unapologetic lack of political correctness also spares us any nonsense about noble savages. Each of the isolated mountain tribes complains about the next tribe living upstream that they wait until the local women are bathing or doing laundry in the river, then they pee into the river. Offered the title of "Ootah The Great," one chief grumbles and says he'd prefer to be known as "Ootah the Terrible." It would have been easy to sentimentalize these people, a bit of teaching of Oriental Wisdom, "a man's reach should not exceed his grasp," or "all things in moderation," or some such nonsense, but we don't get it here. These are pretty rough dudes who play ball with the heads of their enemies.

In trying to capitalize on the success of this movie, the company brought out a "novelization", which turned the screenplay into a novel, as if Kipling had never lived to write the original story. (Talk about barbarism!)

I could watch this a hundred times and still marvel at Connery's mastery of the military style of speech when he says lines like, "There'll be no summary executions in THIS ah-my!" And, "Sorry about that. Blood was up. Won't happen again." He does it at least as well as Nigel Greene, Harry Andrews, or Jack Hawkins -- those mess hall terminal contours.

Don't miss it.

A sarcastic comment on European colonialism, but most of all: an absolutely magnificent adventure about the two adventurers Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) and Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine), with ambitions of becoming kings of whatever country that may want them. Breathtaking scenery, witty dialogue, excellent acting, sarcastic humour and an absorbing story. This movie has it all.

The Indiana Jones and LOTR movies are great adventures, but simply can't be compared to this masterpiece. It's doesn't get better than this, and therefore it's one of five movies I've given the rating 10/10.

An old fashioned, uncomplicated adventure film from John Huston that never manages to become fully engaging.

Sean Connery and Michael Caine play a couple of shysters who want to establish themselves as leaders of some obscure foreign country and then rob it of its riches. The plot never made a whole lot of sense to me, even though the screenplay had the clear blueprint of Rudyard Kipling's original story to follow. Huston is pretty high on my list of overrated directors; a few of his films from the film noir years are excellent, but most everything else falls flat for me. His direction in this film is too leaden to bring it alive. It's supposed to have a bit of rollicking adventure about it, but it instead feels like a slog.

Nominated for four Oscars in 1975, including Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Film Editing.

Grade: B-

Using the old Irish folk tune, the Minstrel Boy for background, John Huston made himself one old fashioned movie of adventure and romance like we rarely see today.

Of course this film rises and falls on the charm and chemistry of its two leads, Sean Connery and Michael Caine. They're a pair of lovable con artists who nearly pull off one big old swindle and take over an ancient inaccessible kingdom in the Afghan mountains.

This was a labor of love for John Huston. As a kid he read Rudyard Kipling's famous short story and it became his favorite work of fiction. Huston as far back as the Fifties wanted to film this first with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart and then later on with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. Try and picture this story done with either of those combinations.

Huston even worked Kipling himself into the act with a fine small cameo by Christopher Plummer. Kipling who was a newspaper correspondent covering the British in India, is told this wild tale about what these two did in the forbidden land of Kaffiristan.

These are the kind of people Kipling himself knew well from the British army in India which back in the day was its own entity and a great tradition of military glory albeit in an imperialist cause. For American audiences just think of Connery and Caine as a couple of GIs recently finished with their service.

I think I understand their characters. What would Connery and Caine be back in civilian life if they returned to the United Kingdom? No one terribly important no doubt. They've spent time in India, learned a lot about the language and customs and want to turn some profit in it, doing something really big. It's a dream we can all identify with, but few of us have the gumption to see it through.

Connery and Caine give some of their best screen performances in The Man Who Would Be king. This film became both a critical and box office success for John Huston, his first really big smash hit in a long time. It holds up well today and will for all time to come.

It's based on the Rudyard Kipling tale. Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer) is approached by a ragged Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) who three years ago traveled to present day Afghanistan. They had met on the train. Peachy is a disillusioned soldier and looking to get a fortune. With Danny Dravot (Sean Connery), they set off on a epic journey and wild adventures. They save villagers being attacked and find helpful Gurkha soldier Billy Fish (Saeed Jaffrey) who survived a previous expedition. Danny survives an arrow during a battle and the locals believe him to be a god.

I would have prefer the movie skip the Kipling part and much of the beginning. There are some fun bits but the movie gets better after the Khyber Pass. That's when the fun high adventure begins. It's old fashion stuff from director John Huston. Michael Caine and Sean Connery are great for the roles. Caine may have had a bit too much fun but that's fine by me.

John Huston must know, equally, how great and how damn flawed man can be. A lot of his films- some might say the bulk of his oeuvre- focuses on this, from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to Moby Dick. Sometimes, it might seem, a man has both the writhing worm of ambition and promise and the potential for complete failure in a single bound. He excels at this, not because he has to but because he needs to tell these stories of men like this - his heroes were manly male stories by the likes of Melville, Kipling, Hemingway and Hammett, but one can also sense the spark of criticism, of questioning what makes such men the way they are. The Man Who Would be King is no exception, and may be the pinnacle of such a tale, where we see two men, formerly failed soldiers, make themselves into the rulers of a nothing country right off of Afghanistan in the 19th century - one of them becomes a God by luck (or destiny) - and how it eventually ruins them.

Whether Huston's film, by way of Kipling's story, is meant as a cautionary tale or a wicked satire (or maybe both), it's still tremendous storytelling, acting, direction and musical composition, etc. In the film, two ex-soldiers of the Royal English Army are in India, Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) and Peachy Carnahan (Michael Caine). They both tell the impressed if a little doubtful Rudyard Kipling himself, merely a journalist at the time (Christopher Plummer by the way), that they, being pretty much without any real place to go or things to do as disgraced soldiers (lots of crimes such as theft and blackmail), have a plan: to go to Kafiristan, which is a country few know exists and hasn't been inhabited by any kind of real ruler since Alexander the Great. In short, a great place to rule and take charge with their skills as soldiers.

After braving the terrain, in some brief but effective scenes showing how much of a duo Draven and Peachy are in battling the weather and a few stray wanderers, they arrive at the country, which is in shambles, and they train some of the locals to fight their way against their rules (the one guy who is sort of, kinda ruling things wants "Terrible" to follow his name, not "Great" as it were). But somehow Draven stands out - first when he is hit by an arrow and it doesn't hurt him or draw blood (since, yeah, it struck a part of his shield), since this shows that he is automatically King. Next, when the High Priest calls him out, he happens to have around his neck a Free-Mason symbol, which sets off the High Priest to declare him a God (since, well, it's the same image as on a tablet or something). For all of the riches now at Draven's disposal, over a short period of time - that is, he really starts to like the idea of this God thing, when before he was on par with Peachy, a tough and smart and witty entrepreneur. No Guts, No Glory, I guess.

This is the sort of story that reads interesting and raises questions about Colonialization and worship in general. On the screen, when delivered by a director who lets the backdrops of the mountains and hordes of middle-eastern mountain people, and the glorious acting of Connery (I might say at a career high here) and Caine (who is no slacker either, certainly when he realizes how crazy Draven has become), it becomes something to behold. The dialog is one thing that sticks out as particularly clever and intelligent; the script could easily fall into some kind of delirious or ridiculous swashbuckler story, or even something that praises what they're doing. But Huston and his co- writer's script give these characters smart things to say, things that people like these British officers with carte blanche, as well as their go-between guy who translates for them, would say in this unlikely cinematic situation. Like other Huston films ala 'Falcon' and 'Sierra Madre', it's very quotable.

The themes are very potent, and not dumbed down or so sensational that they become incredulous. Huston and Kipling draw upon the history of man's ability to overcome obstacles, be it climbing a mountain or training a small army or becoming enamored with the responsibility of a God, what the outcome of adventure and ambition does to people. It's significant, for example, that Draven is told about how Alexander the Great picked his wife from this region when he ruled, and so he decides he must take a wife and bear a son for future rulers, even as it's spoken that women fear being chosen to become the wife of a God since they'll burn up in flames. Things like that, or how simple a small group of monks can stop an entire battle with everyone bowing in heed. It's remarkable how astute the commentary is in the film, while at the same time not detracting from the action or the power of the performances.

The Man Who Would be King is elegant and harsh, with a beautiful and harrowing Maurice Jarre score (if not as iconic still as fantastic as Lawrence of Arabia for him), and memorable for its star power and how its story is really about something. It's also a grandly British story, of guys who sing traditional songs when they're bored or near death) and joke when they can and are so likable for how they just go for broke. That's one other thing: these guys are never so distasteful as to be hated, and even their 'scheme' is sort of endearing because of everything they go through to get to Kafiristan. There's a reason at the end Kipling stands mouth agape instead of reaching for his gun; in spite of everything these guys are truly, painfully human.

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.