wendyluhardy Saw quite a few movies in early 1976 and two of them stand out even after all these years: one is Barry Lyndon and the other is The Man Who Would Be King. So many people haven't heard of these films and I always recommend them. John Huston had been wanting to make this movie for years but wasn't able to until the 1970s. I think it was worth it, because he picked a great cast.It takes a while to get into The Man Who Would Be King, but once you're in, you're hooked. Danny & Peachy (brilliantly portrayed by Sean Connery & Michael Caine) are a couple of hell-raisers, stationed in India as part of the Queen's forces. They've done everything imaginable and are longing for a new adventure. They hear about a remote land beyond the mountains where no white man has gone since Alexander the Great. After almost killing themselves getting to this little place, they finally arrive--and, through a series of coincidences, Danny is crowned king. Who is he to tell the natives that they made a mistake? Danny & Peachy have a great time as the king & his consort (so to speak) until the natives find out that they've been hoodwinked; Danny is a mere mortal like everyone else. And they aren't too happy.I had to purchase the DVD because TV hardly ever showed this movie. But it's worth the price. John Huston directs a wonderful adventure story that stands the test of time.

darthelton This is a highly enjoyable and lighthearted, yet somewhat moving film about two best friends and comrades who hoodwink an entire middle eastern village into thinking that one of them (Sean Connery) is a god. Well, as you can imagine, it doesn't go too well. This has now become one of my favorite Michael Caine movies.Not much more can be said about it unless you want to go into the deeper meaning of how god constructed man in his image, yet man cannot handle the responsibilities of a god, and how temptation and greed are a double edged sword. Lots of great lines, lots of memorable moments, well worth a watch. Just remember that THIS is Sean Connery's favorite role.

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.

Oeuvre_Klika 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.