Is it really possible to hate a movie like The Man Who Would Be King? While it is understandable that it may not be your favorite movie, you just can't help enjoying at least some parts of the movie. At the same time nothing stands out about The Man Who Would Be King. The acting, directing, and story, all good, but none of them stand out as defining or extremely memorable. But this movie is still remembered and praised over thirty years later. Why is that? It's because, while nothing about The Man Who Would Be King excels, nothing about it is bad either.
Told through a flashback, the man who would be king tells the story of two con men, played by Michael Cane and Sean Connery, who decide to con an entire country for its wealth wealth. After tracking across deserts and frozen mountain peaks, the two men come to the fictional country of Kafiristan, which is made up of about thirty warring tribes. After picking one of the tribes they began to train the natives to fight the other tribes with the intent of eventually taking over and unifying the entire country. However one of the men, Daniel Dravot (Connery), survives an arrow shot in battle and is mistaken for a god. Using this newfound advantage the two Englishmen began to take control of the entire country. The story is interesting and told well enough that the viewer does not get bored watching it, yet at the same time the turn of event throughout the movie feel almost inevitable. Its like reading a mystery aimed for young readers where and older and more advanced reader has spotted the fairly obvious clues and solved the mystery by chapter four.
The choice of putting Connery and Caine together for this movie seems like an unusual choice but was an undeniably successful one. Film critics have compared their teaming up to that of others such as Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Connery and Caine play very different characters that feel like they should be conflicting with each other but instead each seems to complement the other nicely. Connery is reserved and stone faced through out the movie. Confident in his beliefs and determined to get them Connery pulls of the character so quietly that you can almost forget that you are watching Sean Connery on the screen. Michael Caine is another story altogether. Loud, crass, rebellious and fun loving, Caine's character of Peachy Carnehan almost seems like a young boy trapped inside an mans body. Throughout the movie Caine is the one who speaks back to authority and makes witty remarks to everyone that he meets. Both actor's strongest moment is in the same scene when they are arguing, and ironically the almost seem to be playing each other. Connery, while still quiet and stone faced wants to say where he is enjoying life, and Caine while still being a loud and crass character plays the more mature one who recognizes that they both need to leave.
If there is one thing that can be considered epic about The Man Who Would Be King, it is the stunning scenery that is shown throughout the movie. Wide shots that show extensive deserts can take the audiences breath away with the raw beauty that is captured on footage. During a sequence where the heroes attempt to cross a mountain range, there is almost a montage of still clips of jagged cliffs and snow capped mountain peaks. Combining this sequence with almost the perfect music, it is one of the most captivating things in the entire movie. Even when majestic landscapes weren't being shown, the scenery was still captivating. The opening shots are of a market place in India, and while I knew ahead of time that they were actually filmed in morocco it had me believing that I was seeing an authentic Indian marketplace.
Set in the 1800s this movie takes place around the end of British exploration and colonization. While the political message is subtle, it does seem to stand against colonization. The Man Who Would Be King shows all of the negative effect that come about by forcing a modern society onto an uncivilized people. Rudyard Kipling, the writer of the original short story was very much in love with the wild and the unknown that was left in the world and probably felt that the colonization of the British was taking away what unknown was left. Director John Huston had long been a fan of the original short story by Kipling and had wanted to make a movie of it for some time. In fact he had gotten the rights to the story early in the 50s hoping to use other actors. When he tried to get Paul Newman, who he had worked with in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, to be in the movie, it was Newman who suggested using Connery and Caine.
All in all, The Man Who Would Be King is a memorable movie. It does not inspire you or make any shocking political statement but it does thoroughly entertain you for two hours. Fifty years from now, Film historians will probably not look back on it and say that it was one of the most defining movies of our time. But fifty years from now they will probably still know what it is.
Told through a flashback, the man who would be king tells the story of two con men, played by Michael Cane and Sean Connery, who decide to con an entire country for its wealth wealth. After tracking across deserts and frozen mountain peaks, the two men come to the fictional country of Kafiristan, which is made up of about thirty warring tribes. After picking one of the tribes they began to train the natives to fight the other tribes with the intent of eventually taking over and unifying the entire country. However one of the men, Daniel Dravot (Connery), survives an arrow shot in battle and is mistaken for a god. Using this newfound advantage the two Englishmen began to take control of the entire country. The story is interesting and told well enough that the viewer does not get bored watching it, yet at the same time the turn of event throughout the movie feel almost inevitable. Its like reading a mystery aimed for young readers where and older and more advanced reader has spotted the fairly obvious clues and solved the mystery by chapter four.
The choice of putting Connery and Caine together for this movie seems like an unusual choice but was an undeniably successful one. Film critics have compared their teaming up to that of others such as Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Connery and Caine play very different characters that feel like they should be conflicting with each other but instead each seems to complement the other nicely. Connery is reserved and stone faced through out the movie. Confident in his beliefs and determined to get them Connery pulls of the character so quietly that you can almost forget that you are watching Sean Connery on the screen. Michael Caine is another story altogether. Loud, crass, rebellious and fun loving, Caine's character of Peachy Carnehan almost seems like a young boy trapped inside an mans body. Throughout the movie Caine is the one who speaks back to authority and makes witty remarks to everyone that he meets. Both actor's strongest moment is in the same scene when they are arguing, and ironically the almost seem to be playing each other. Connery, while still quiet and stone faced wants to say where he is enjoying life, and Caine while still being a loud and crass character plays the more mature one who recognizes that they both need to leave.
If there is one thing that can be considered epic about The Man Who Would Be King, it is the stunning scenery that is shown throughout the movie. Wide shots that show extensive deserts can take the audiences breath away with the raw beauty that is captured on footage. During a sequence where the heroes attempt to cross a mountain range, there is almost a montage of still clips of jagged cliffs and snow capped mountain peaks. Combining this sequence with almost the perfect music, it is one of the most captivating things in the entire movie. Even when majestic landscapes weren't being shown, the scenery was still captivating. The opening shots are of a market place in India, and while I knew ahead of time that they were actually filmed in morocco it had me believing that I was seeing an authentic Indian marketplace.
Set in the 1800s this movie takes place around the end of British exploration and colonization. While the political message is subtle, it does seem to stand against colonization. The Man Who Would Be King shows all of the negative effect that come about by forcing a modern society onto an uncivilized people. Rudyard Kipling, the writer of the original short story was very much in love with the wild and the unknown that was left in the world and probably felt that the colonization of the British was taking away what unknown was left. Director John Huston had long been a fan of the original short story by Kipling and had wanted to make a movie of it for some time. In fact he had gotten the rights to the story early in the 50s hoping to use other actors. When he tried to get Paul Newman, who he had worked with in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, to be in the movie, it was Newman who suggested using Connery and Caine.
All in all, The Man Who Would Be King is a memorable movie. It does not inspire you or make any shocking political statement but it does thoroughly entertain you for two hours. Fifty years from now, Film historians will probably not look back on it and say that it was one of the most defining movies of our time. But fifty years from now they will probably still know what it is.