Review: ‘The Man Who Would Be King’

Whether it was the intention of John Huston or not, the tale of action and adventure is a too-broad comedy, mostly due to the poor performance of Michael Caine.

Whether it was the intention of John Huston or not, the tale of action and adventure is a too-broad comedy, mostly due to the poor performance of Michael Caine.

As Peachy Carnehan, a loudmouth braggart and former soldier in the Indian army, Caine joins forces with another veteran, Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery), to make their fortunes in a mountain land beyond Afghanistan. Connery, in the title role, gives a generally credible, but not very sympathetic, portrayal of the man thrust into potential greatness.

The most redeeming aspect of the film is the performance of Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling, from whose classic story pic is a variation. Despite the small amount of footage he well deserves his star billing.

1975: Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, Art Direction, Editing

The Man Who Would Be King

Production

Columbia/Allied Artists. Director John Huston; Producer John Foreman; Screenplay John Huston, Gladys Hill; Camera Oswald Morris; Editor Russell Lloyd; Music Maurice Jarre; Art Director Alexander Trauner

Crew

(Color) Widescreen. Available on VHS, DVD. Extract of a review from 1975. Running time: 129 MIN.

With

Sean Connery Michael Caine Christopher Plummer Saeed Jaffrey Shakira Caine

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 1

Leave a Reply

1 Comment

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Sorry but is this review a joke? The critic should stop writing. This critic is most probably either a frustrated filmmaker, actor or just someone who wants to feel important. His assessment of the movie is highly subjective, without any artistic merit. I could have countered his argument by saying that Michael Cain’s acting was superb, but it would mean nothing because such comments are so subjective. What is it that made you think that his performance was “poor” (because I sure didn’t)? What a lousy review.

More Film News from Variety

Loading