| The Man Who Would Be King | | Cast : | Sean Connery, Michael Caine | | Director : | John Huston | | Studio : | Warner Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, HiFi Sound, Widescreen | | Released Date : | December 17, 1975 | | DVD Released Date : | November 18, 1997 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), English (Original Language), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 25, 2005 | | Summary | "A Glorious Band, the Chosen Few..." | Content
 | One of my all time favorite movies, and one of John Huston greatest films. Sean Connery and Michael Caine play two ex-soldiers looking for a quick way to get rich in 1880's India. They decide to travel to the remote kingdom of Kaffiristan, where they set themselves up as gods. Their plan, as Connery puts it, is to "seize the royal throne, loot the country four ways from Sunday," and get the hell out. Eventually the jig is up, and they have to run for their lives. That's the plot in a nutshell. This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen, with some delightful and wonderful moments. Film lore has it that Huston wanted to make this movie back in the fifties with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart, and I'm glad he didn't. I get the feeling that it would have been written off as another Gable movie, or another Bogart movie. This 1975 film, however, is completely faithful to Kipling's spirit. The drawbridge scene with Connery is something right out of Kipling, and one of the great moments in film. More than just a "guys movie," this is a truly delightful, marvelous film! |
| Rating | | | Date | July 19, 2005 | | Summary | Excellent! | Content
| Yes, the DVD is double-sided with about half the movie on each side. I did not find this to be much of a problem, as it gave me an intermission to let me go the the necessary. The movie is great, in my opinion, but it is a fair amount different from the short story (about 70 pages long), so I don't think it'd take that much to actually film it closer to the story. An the extra about the making of the film was good.
All-in-all, a very good movie. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 19, 2005 | | Summary | Bittersweet Adventure With Loads of Atmosphere | Content
| So many people love this movie, and rightly so. As rugged adventurers who are also the best of friends, Sean Connery and Michael Caine reached their career peak as Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, respectively. But I think it's a mistake to call it an "action movie" or an "epic." For all the laughs and glamor, and the feel-good friendship of the two buddies, this movie is really a tragedy in the classical sense.
Don't watch this movie expecting RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, where the good guys win and everybody leaves the story happy and alive. It's terribly important to remember that though this movie came out just one year before STAR WARS, John Huston is miles away from the infantile zap-zap action of children like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.
The movie charts the downfall of two men who try to rise too high, just like Icarus in Greek myth. Rudyard Kipling felt that men who serve in the ranks should not get "above themselves" and wrote this story to show what happens when such people get out of their place. At the same time, Kipling was trying to warn the English people that the British Empire would only last as long as the purpose was justice rather than greed.
Watching the movie, it's hard not to be torn. The two heroes fail in terms of empire building and politics, because they break faith with their native subjects one time too many. But at the same time, they never break faith with each other. The movie asks the question, can any person really be a failure if he/she has sacrificed everything for friendship? The final "defeat" of the pair is also final victory in that they maintain the one thing in their lives that was always above corruption -- their friendship. The bittersweet ending is complex and ambiguous, and signals that this is truly a masterpiece by giants of a nobler age.
John Huston is gone now, replace by pygmies like Spielberg and Lucas. They don't make movies like THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 30, 2005 | | Summary | A Beau Geste or a Gunga Din For the 70's | Content
| I'm not at all surprised to read John Huston started working on this project in the 50's with Bogie & "King" Gable in mind. The Man Who Would Be King is kind of a throwback to the less enlighted pre 60's. The movie is extremely politically incorrect in its depiction of the "natives". It probably could not be made today. Connery & Caine are the the Cary Grants, Gary Coopers, Bogies and Gables of the 70's. This is a good old fashioned rip roaring adventure. Extremely clever, pulpy, wild, inventive, and entertaining. There really aren't adventure movies anymore, it would seem. One might say Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones is the last adventure flick hero. The closest approximation for today's cinema is a lavish fantasy trilogy of hobbits, wizards, orcs and magic rings. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 12, 2005 | | Summary | Love the movie, hate the DVD... | Content
| It seems to be a common complaint, but I am still amazed how willing some people are to overlook the flaws of the dvd and give it 5 stars. A two-sided DVD is simply inexcusable, it's not an exceptionally long movie, nor does it have an exceptional amount of special features. I remain convinced that if it were so inclined it could easily fit both the feature and the special features on one side of one DVD. Anyway, am I the only one who likes to get situated and comfortable when watching a movie? flipping it an hour into the movie is incredibly annoying.... and yes, I'm picky enough to give this movie the worst possible rating simply for that |
|
|
|
|
