Der Mann, der König sein wollte

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.

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.

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.

Why is this film not given more recognition? It was one of those films that I had always heard about but had never seen. Well, I saw it the other day and I am shocked that I wasn't forced to watch this years ago. It is an amazing film. I have a hard time coming up with something that was wrong with it. The highlights, of course, were the performances of Caine and Connery. Nearly every user comment for this film has said how good their chemistry was, well I read all these comments before seeing the film and was still blown away by how good the chemistry was. Connery in particular was a surprise to me, even though Caine probably gave the better performance of the two.

As a Brit living in the US, it is hard to get Americans to really understand subtle aspects of British life (the optimism, the humour, the strength of character)... so I now have three movies that I tell people to watch in order to get a better idea of what it means to be British: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, and The Man Who Would Be King.

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.