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.

"Maltese Falcon" director John Huston's storybook adventure saga "The Man Who Would Be King" casts Sean Connery and Michael Caine as two former British Army soldiers in 19th century India. These two scoundrels aspire to become kings in their own right in a distant land of Kafristan. Despite its downbeat ending, this ambitious saga has some amusing moments early on as the roguish pair visit the famous writer Rudyard Kipling before they march off to glory. This is an old-fashioned melodrama about a pair of mercenaries who get everything that they deserve in the long run. Nevertheless, Connery and Caine have a field day as the Queen's own until they encounter tragedy. Our protagonists masquerade as natives and enter a land where no white man has been seen since Alexander the Great in 230 B.C. They raise an army from a small ruler's kingdom and march into battle against one tyrant after another until Connery's Daniel Dravot leads a reckless charge against the enemy in their first battle against the orders of his comrade-in-arms Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) who reprimands him for his amateurish behavior. During the charge, an arrow plunges into Daniel's chest, but lodges harmlessly in his bandoleer and he survives. However, everybody who witnessed his exploit believe that Daniel survived because he is nothing less than divine, a god, and they fall down on their knees and worship him. Predictably, our heroes amass a fortune in gold, but Daniel begins to believe in his own divinity and makes the mistake of taking a wife. When the dame bites him during their wedding ceremony, they realize that they have cooked their collective geese. Everybody realizes that Daniel isn't a god and they sent him to his death and crucify poor Peachy. Lensed on location in sunny, sand-swept Morocco, "The Man Who Would Be King" was a life-long dream of writer & director John Huston who initially sought to make it during the Golden Age of Hollywood with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart.

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.

Nominated for 4 Oscars yet winning none it's shocking it didn't get nominated for more. Michael Caine's performance was stunning as a best friend who stays with his comrade no matter what. This is the ultimate of buddy, road-trip films similar to Easy Rider or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You're supposed to enjoy the ride even if there's foreshadowing that things don't end right. At the same time, there's a Doctor Zhivago aspect of a grand epic. The scenery is stunning as is the whole scope of the film. In Doctor Zhivago, you know from the beginning how the tale ends and you almost forget it because of 3 hours of grand (although sad) story. In this one, the two hours seem to fly by. The jokes and clever human insights are thrown out, at several levels (both vaudeville as well as more subtle) faster than than you can follow along or laugh. The material is wonderfully unPC by today's standards and consequently, a few (few) reviewers were turned off by it but simultaneously, it was a film of it's times (the 1960's, the late Victorian era, and even the cultures portrayed in the film) that you feel immersed and drawn in. This Is An Epic Film. Like life, sometimes we are too busy having a good time, or not, to stop and smell the roses. You can do that after a 2nd viewing which I guarantee you'll want to have.