The Man Who Would Be King Book Movie Reviews

George Richard

I'd like to report that the last Friday of January in the first year of our present century was spend with a select group of friends in quiet contemplation and stimulating discussion of dispatches from the farthest corners of her Britannic Majesties Empire. Exchanging Toasts to the Health of the Queen we supped upon scones and cakes and fortified ourselves with gin and tonics. God save the Queen, Empress of India and her loyal correspondent R. Kipling.

Notice I started I'd like to report? Unfortunately we met about a century to late to really appreciate Kipling. Now I realize I'm partially to blame (I suggested the movie) but I'd never read the short story before and the movie was a favorite when it first came out so It was a natural RTBSTM mistake. Kipling, the consensus goes doesn't age well. I'll admit I didn't read much else in the book, but not for lack of trying. The stories are a bit slow in their development and understatement seems to be the dominant descriptive verb fashion. Hey it's no 100 Years of Solitude but to complete the Trilogy I have, may take that long. The stories are very tied to their particular time and mindset and being written for a very specific audience diminishes their appeal. There's not much relevance and quite a bit of the plot turns are clouded by arcane terminology that was in Kipling's defense much more commonly known when he wrote his stories. Some other RTBSTMC members have written in praise of his children's tales, fortunately I have no reason to read them.

With such a glowing recommendation of the original material I'm certain the movie will have a hard time drawing many viewers, but I think it's worth watching. Michael Caine and Sean Connery more than flesh out the characters, giving them depth and motive missing in the story. That old master John Huston, proved he had some creative mileage left in him with great setting and framing (and a magnificent backdrop) and a pacing that drags some but generally lays out and explains the story well. What you end up with is a Victorian western buddy flick with a moral. In between there's a few laughs, some testosterone filled excitement and I thought a very good explaination/rewriting/performance of an otherwise disappointing story. According to the extras on the DVD, Huston owned the rights to the story for years, originally hoping to do it with Errol Flynn and Clark Gable. I don't think they could have done better than Connery & Caine, then again I grew up listening to the real accent. On a 1 - 10 I'd say a 6, better than a lot of dreck we see.

Tim Wick

I am pretty convinced I don't like Rudyard Kipling.

Oh, I am sure he is a fine person with many traits that would make him worth spending time with. I have even been told that he is a fine poet. Having only read his prose up to this point in my life, I continue to contend that I don't like him at all.

Having waded through a dreadful thirty page story called The Man Who Would be King, I was not looking forward to the film of the same name, despite the presence of Sean Connery and Michael Caine in starring roles. I found the story confusing. It relied on a lot of Masonic imagery that was probably familiar to those who read it at the turn of the century, but was only so much gobbledygook to me now. The narrative style Kipling used was tiresome to me, with the story being related to the writer through one of the characters involved, giving the reader a strange first/third person point of view. I even tried to read the other short stories included with this one in hopes that he would improve. No, not at all.

What a delightful surprise the movie was after the disappointing story. The movie managed to preserve just about every word of dialogue from the short story, but also took time to explain the Masons and why they were ultimately important. I will admit that it was not just the confusing Masonic references that turned me off to the story, but having them explained early in the movie allowed me to give the movie a chance.

It seems clear that the movie was shot to have a very similar look and feel to Lawrence of Arabia in that it is almost an African western. I found that a bit different from the book, which described the land of Kazikstan as one that was lush and bountiful. Instead, the land in the movie looked barren. Of course, the movie was shot in India, so that may have a lot to do with the look of the landscape. Had I never read the story, the location would not have even registered to me, so I can hardly call it a complaint.

More than anything, the movie reminded me what it was like to see Sean Connery in a GOOD movie. Given his track record over the last several years (Entrapment and The Avengers being two less than fine examples), it is nice to look back to a day where he felt compelled to take roles in good movies, rather than roles that paid enough money. Connery brings just the right amount of swagger to Danny to make him likeable despite his growing pride that prevents him from seeing how close to the edge he is walking.

I have mentioned on this site that I am something of an uneducated heathen when it comes to movies released before 1977. I tend to rent new releases first and then something I've seen before but deserves a second watch. Only then do I turn to the "classics" section of the local video store. The Man who would be King, though not a true classic like Casablanca or Sunset Boulevard is a fine example of why I need to look at the classics section first every now and again.

But I'll skip the source material if it's by Kipling, thank you very much.