Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Smoreni Zmaj This is one of my favorite movies. Two crooks and adventurers, former English soldiers and members of Masonic lodge, travel from India to Kafiristan, where Europeans have not been seen since Alexander the Great, to conquer and become kings. Adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's novel with Sean Connery, Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer.9/10

jackflenna-986-778646 This movie starts off feeling dated. It being written by Rudyard Kipling does not help. He is known both for the greatness of his works and his antiquated views on conquest and imperialism. However, this movie really shows itself as just not outdated but fitting to the time it was set in, and it delves deep into the follies of man.Many men thought it wise to subjugate and manipulate men less cunning than themselves; this movie shows how two men can fall into that trap and the price they pay.

classicsoncall God's Holy Trousers! Here I go again - kicking myself for not catching this movie sooner than some forty plus years after it was made. Sean Connery and Michael Caine portray a wonderful pair of former British soldiers who decide that living a mundane life is not for them. So what's the solution? Let's find a far off land and declare ourselves 'Kings'! Only by the time Danny Dravot (Connery) and Peachy Carnehan (Caine) attain their goal, Danny quite literally begins to lord it over his sidekick Peachy and fellow traveler Billy Fish (Saeed Jaffrey) when his countenance is mistakenly taken for a descendant of Alexander the Great. Via improper enunciation, Alexander becomes 'Sikander' to the native villagers in a score of towns on the Indian sub-continent. Had they been wise and followed Peachy's unerring observation to take the treasures and run, all would have ended happily for the likeable Brits. But as is often the case, their downfall is the result of a woman, but for that you'll have to catch the movie. The story is sprinkled with the presence of it's original author, Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer), much in the same way as the more recent "John Carter" movie was bookended by the presence of Edgar Rice Burroughs. This is a colorful tale with both high and low adventure and an ending that's reminiscent of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", while borrowing somewhat from the exploits of Butch and Sundance.

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.