The Man Who Would Be King
(B or 3/4 stars)
Based on a Rudyard Kipling story, 'The Man Who Would Be King' (directed & co-written by the great John Huston) is a decent historical adventure/escapist film from 1975 that unites Sean Connery & Michael Caine as a pair of British army pals who get elected as deities in 1880s India. It stats very well with a good set-up & some rousing, old fashioned adventure on tap; it's just that it goes on a tad too long for me and, I was starting to lose interest/patience with its increasingly absurdist tale as it went. It opens with author Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer, fun) working alone in his study in India, when a miserable derelict, Peachy Carnehan (Michael Caine) - who he had once met on a train as an acquaintance - interrupts him.
With that, madman Peachy tells of the not-so-long-ago quest he had with his fellow opportunistic buddy, Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery). It is a tall tale that tells us how these two soldiers, stationed in India, resigned from the army & fled to the isolated land of Kafiristan -- an area where no white man had set foot since Alexander, but a region chock full of gold & riches set deep in its mountains. Due to their astute army skills, they are embraced by the warring factions there. Now as revered rulers, the swindlers scheme to take a fortune back to England but, through a stroke of dumb luck, the tribal leader believes Danny to be ... a god; prepping to crown him king & make him wealthy. The greedy duo changes their plans to try to take advantage of their new lives as immortals, haha. All goes well 'til Danny bleeds when scratched by the woman he marries (Michael Caine's real-life wife, Shakira Caine); exposing their deception to the hostile natives. Melodrama ensues.
You know, this film has a little bit of everything: intrigue, humor, drama, romance, peril, pageantry, ironic twists, & much derring-do. Problem for me is: the initial intrigue falls a way; the humor becomes too broad; the drama isn't potent enough; the romance is too light; the peril becomes a touch silly; the pageantry can only take you so far; & the derring-do becomes a bit numbing. This all makes it sound like a hated the film. Quite the contrary. It just didn't "sing" in the same way that it appeared to do for critics & audiences back in 1975, and perhaps today, as well.
Sean Connery & Michael Caine exhibit fine buddy chemistry as our roguish conmen. I think I got a kick out of Connery more so than Caine. I also really enjoyed Christopher Plummer's take on Rudyard Kipling. It is a very colorful film, as well; with effervescent dialogue & rapturous visuals. Oswald Morris provides the stellar cinematography. Along with the screenplay, this film was nominated at the Academy Awards for Russell Lloyd's editing, its detailed 19th c. production designs & Edith Head's spectacular costumes. The great Maurice Jarre provides a catchy music score. I don't know why this film didn't hit it out of the ball park, for me. Despite the film's apparent strengths, I just thought that I would find it all more involving than it was.
With that, madman Peachy tells of the not-so-long-ago quest he had with his fellow opportunistic buddy, Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery). It is a tall tale that tells us how these two soldiers, stationed in India, resigned from the army & fled to the isolated land of Kafiristan -- an area where no white man had set foot since Alexander, but a region chock full of gold & riches set deep in its mountains. Due to their astute army skills, they are embraced by the warring factions there. Now as revered rulers, the swindlers scheme to take a fortune back to England but, through a stroke of dumb luck, the tribal leader believes Danny to be ... a god; prepping to crown him king & make him wealthy. The greedy duo changes their plans to try to take advantage of their new lives as immortals, haha. All goes well 'til Danny bleeds when scratched by the woman he marries (Michael Caine's real-life wife, Shakira Caine); exposing their deception to the hostile natives. Melodrama ensues.
You know, this film has a little bit of everything: intrigue, humor, drama, romance, peril, pageantry, ironic twists, & much derring-do. Problem for me is: the initial intrigue falls a way; the humor becomes too broad; the drama isn't potent enough; the romance is too light; the peril becomes a touch silly; the pageantry can only take you so far; & the derring-do becomes a bit numbing. This all makes it sound like a hated the film. Quite the contrary. It just didn't "sing" in the same way that it appeared to do for critics & audiences back in 1975, and perhaps today, as well.
Sean Connery & Michael Caine exhibit fine buddy chemistry as our roguish conmen. I think I got a kick out of Connery more so than Caine. I also really enjoyed Christopher Plummer's take on Rudyard Kipling. It is a very colorful film, as well; with effervescent dialogue & rapturous visuals. Oswald Morris provides the stellar cinematography. Along with the screenplay, this film was nominated at the Academy Awards for Russell Lloyd's editing, its detailed 19th c. production designs & Edith Head's spectacular costumes. The great Maurice Jarre provides a catchy music score. I don't know why this film didn't hit it out of the ball park, for me. Despite the film's apparent strengths, I just thought that I would find it all more involving than it was.