American film director John Houston for a very long time, from the 50s, hatched the idea of filming the story of Rudyard Kipling “The Man Who Wanted to Be King”, several times changed ideas regarding the performers of the main roles, until, finally, he saw in them Paul Newman and Robert Redford, however, Newman, praising the script, said that this role is not for him and advised to shoot all the same English actors – Sean Connery and Michael Caine, and Houston followed his advice. In 1975, the film was shot, the aforementioned actors were joined by Christopher Plummer as Kipling himself. The film is slightly different from the story, but that didn't spoil it. Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer) seems to accidentally (but we see that he does not) meets on the train with a certain Englishman Peachey Carnehan (Michael Kane), a petty crook who stole his watch, but chased him to return it, seeing on the chain a Masonic keychain, he could not rob the Mason, to whose bed he belonged. Peachy asks Kipling to run an errand, and so he meets his friend and accomplice Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) for the first time. Both are retired former non-commissioned officers in the British Army and are looking for ways to earn extra money, but in India they are not doing it properly. Then they both report to his editorial office, and he learns about their plan to go to Kafiristan to become kings there and get the treasure. He tries to warn them about the dangers of going through Afghanistan, but they don’t listen to him and ask him to assure them of a pact in which they vow not to touch alcohol or women until their plan is fulfilled. In the end, Kipling gives Dravot the keychain that will then play a fatal role in the whole story - first positive, then negative. The friends go on a journey, their plans are almost fulfilled, until suddenly, after their next victory (and they have practically created their own army), they are not invited to his high priest of the secret city there, he wants to expose them, but seeing on the neck of Dravot that very keychain, he almost begins to believe that a descendant of Sikander (Iskander, Alexander the Great), who once visited them and conquered them. He is extinguished by the king, they receive the untold treasures of Sicandra at their disposal, here Peachey has a sniff and instinct for self-preservation, he offers to take away the treasures and carry away faster than his feet, but, alas, Daniel is intoxicated with power, he thinks himself a real king and refuses to go anywhere. Of course, this story could not end well. Peachey managed to escape, although he suffered greatly himself, he appeared in the editorial office and the story is conducted as if on his behalf (in the original it was conducted on behalf of Kipling). The film is shot on a wide scale, complex field shootings, which, however, were conducted not in India, but in Morocco, but the landscapes are impressive. Great actors who play the main roles. I liked the movie.
Ostap Bender in South Asia. In this case, two Ostapas. Those who like the Asian theme and the clash between the West and the East will probably be interested. The creators did not regret the corresponding color. Good movie, good humor sometimes. But that's it.
Colonial India of the second half of the XIX century. Two rogue friends, specializing in space-scale scams, decide to sneak into the wild and almost inaccessible mountainous country of Kafiristan, conquer local tribes, head their state, and then plunder the treasury and flush back into the fold of civilization. The idea is so incredible that I almost believe in its execution. The problems will begin elsewhere, when the gold of the world is already underfoot. And this is the problem that humanity has not been able to solve since the time of its meaningful existence - how to voluntarily force itself to give up power when it is laid out on a platter, albeit in such a wilderness as Kafiristan?
Adventure-adventure production from the cheerful old man John Houston, who after long ordeals managed to film a short story-parable of Rudyard Kipling. However, to claim that Houston was already quite elegant movie, still not necessary. Initially, the tape took pace as an adventurous comedy and went in this direction long enough, until Houston did not wander into the wilds of philosophical and everyday reasoning. Another disadvantage of the picture is a rather modest decorative entourage, which lacks thoroughbred saturation. And what was supposed to be on “the stretches of Afghanistan”, even if filmed in Morocco? But still I wanted to see some great scale, especially with a fairly solid, as for the mid-70s, 8-millimeter budget.
But the strength of the picture is the game of Sean Connery and Michael Caine, who, on their charm alone, drew out this not the most entertaining story. Connery played the man who “wanted to be king,” and he was pretty good. But even better was his vis-à-vis Kane, who became a vestige of the whole project. Interestingly, the plot failed princess performed by Indian Shakira Baksh, who was to become the wife of Sean Connery, according to the results of the film became the true wife of Michael Caine. Here, for the first time, another handsome Indian Said Jaffrey, who played a Scottish translator, said loudly about himself. But the game of 46-year-old Christopher Plummer, who portrayed the writer Rudyard Kipling, was somewhat infantilely fresh. A writer is not always a fool. But Plummer turned out just such Kipling.
A kind of protoversion of “Indiana Jones” from John Huston, although how many of these “protoversions” have already been, and a sample of this adventurous adventure film will shoot all the same Steven Spielberg.
6.5 out of 10
The Adventures of Two Adventurers or the White Gods of Karifistan
Adventure. The film adaptation of the eponymous story by the famous English writer Rudyard Kipling, which in turn is based on real events. And since I have nothing to say (because I have not read it), I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. Of course, I understand that the topic of Afghanistan is now very hot, but the picture was chosen for viewing long before the flight of the “exceptional nation” from bearded shepherds with Kalash, so do not write in the comments that the author “hypuy” on a hot topic. That's not true. One of the reasons I watched this movie was for the late Sean Connery and Michael Caine to be here and in the lead roles. And here's my brief opinion: The Adventures of Two Adventurers. In the picture there were both pros and cons, and so I conclude the introduction and move on to the essence, so to speak.
So, pluses:
1. The script - two friends, former soldiers of the British army, and now adventurers have decided on a bold raid to the north - to get into Afghanistan, more precisely in the historical region of Karifistan, and become no less the rulers of these possessions. They conclude a contract, and a witness takes journalist Rudyard Kipling. So begins this adventure, full of danger, ups and downs, hope and despair. And although the finale is guessed almost from the very beginning, the viewer is still interested to learn how this event happened and what happened to the characters throughout this journey. The scriptwriters hooked the viewer with this hook, and did not let him go even to the final credits. Of course, there is one point that slightly spoils the impression, but I will talk about this below. In general, the script can be called successful, the characters are prescribed, and the production is magnificent.
2. Full-scale filming – unfortunately, everything was filmed not in Afghanistan (due to many reasons, including the difficult political situation), but in the beloved Hollywood Morocco, where the terrain resembles Afghan. Nevertheless, the picture was successful, because the viewer believes in what is happening. Particularly bribed by various trifles, such as the life of local residents, their customs and the colossal difference between them and the arrived heroes.
3. Fights and battles - of course not "War and Peace" Bondarchuk, but it looks tolerable, because large-scale battles involving several tens of thousands of people from this picture would be foolish to expect, so we showed such scenes not very much. And it looks good for the mid-seventies. But even in these moments you feel tension and even fear for the heroes, despite their combat experience.
4. The music was quite amusing, for it almost did not remind itself, but when it did, it blew the brain with its compositions. The masterpiece clearly does not pull (and will never pull), but within this picture - a good option.
5. Humor - I was even surprised by its presence, but in the end I was satisfied with it. Typical British humor. It is served dosed, brute force is not observed, and nicely dilutes this adventure.
6. Conclusions - the picture leaves behind a rich food for thought about many things: about power and the way to achieve it, how to preserve it, the comparison of man with God, about the "civilization" and "barbarism" of different peoples, the conflict of cultures, the cost of human decisions, responsibility, friendship and a bunch of things. This is what distinguishes a good movie from a bad one, because a bad one leaves nothing behind, because you do not want to think about it, it does not teach anything, it just exists, and it wants to make money. This picture is a typical representative of a good movie, over which every viewer must think.
So, minuses:
1. Tightness - with all the advantages of this picture, it is honest to admit that it is monotonous and in some dreams even viscous, and the script is the fault. I can’t even imagine what could be cut to get rid of this drawback. But you can't fight the facts. Alas!
For a long time I thought about the second minus, but did not remember anything, so move on!
A bit about the main characters:
1. Daniel Drevott played by Sean Connery is one of the adventurers who set out to become the rulers of Karifistan. Smart, cunning and cheerful guy who gets the chance to become a living God for the locals. But will he be able to pass the test of power? There are many temptations. Sean Connery is a master of his craft, and the role of this adventurer definitely succeeded him. Bravo!
2. Peachey Carnegan, played by Michael Caine, is a cautious friend of Daniel’s, who is as infected with the idea as he is. He is also a cheerful and cheerful man who turned out to be much more insightful than his friend. And Michael Caine masterfully performed this role and caused much more sympathy, although both of them are essentially antiheroes. Bravo Michael!
3. Rudyard Kipling performed by Christopher Plummer is a casual friend of friends who was at the right time and in the right place. He is a witness to their contract and a bright secondary hero. Kipling was shown truthfully, because he was a racist, at the same time a talented writer who knew the East well, and Christopher Plummer had only to perfectly transfer it to the screen, which he did.
A thinking picture, a fascinating picture, a good picture, which I dug up quite by accident, and about which little is known, which is sad. Maybe this review will lift the veil a little bit. I am so confident in this respect.
As a result, we have a good adventure movie, with a good script that makes you think about a lot, good music, battle scenes and great acting work.
John Huston, who has directed a large number of films, some of which occupy high places in prestigious tops, has always gravitated towards adventurous plots (would not gravitate - would not become a classic of the Noir genre). The Man Who Wanted to Be King is based on Kipling’s short story. Well, the same Rudyard Kipling who wrote Mowgli and Ricky-Tiki-Tavi.
The literary script was written by Houston in the early 50s. It has changed several times.
The plot of the film features Rudyard Kipling himself, played by Christopher Plummer. Kipling is a journalist who writes for the English newspaper North Star, published in India for the British. He meets his brother, Peachey. Brother of the Masonic Order.
The film is in part notable for the fact that Michael Caine for some time played a non-comedic role. It plays a vivid, ironic, but not a comedic role. He plays retired junior officer Peachy, a con man and a pickpocket. Sean Connery plays his best friend, Junior Officer Daniel. Both served well for the English crown, and then decided to serve themselves. First, they raise local rajas, officials, etc. for money, and then they set about the great, anointed thing: they decide to become kings. This is their idea: they want to climb through the snow-covered passes to the country of Kafiristan, inaccessible to the leg of a white man, and there – to asceticize as commanders to one of the local kings, distribute rifles, conquer the entire mountainous country under the flags of the king, and then usurp power.
Houston made both a fraudulent and a heroic film. Houston was invariably attracted to the strong (and at the same time adventurous) characters of people, he was rarely exchanged for empty personalities.
In short, Peachey and Daniel go to Kafiristan. In about an hour or an hour and a half, an adventure movie turns into a postmodern adventure film. It turns into a proto-mebrtoeco movie. The symbiosis of Foucault's Pendulum and Baudolino. Read it if you haven’t read it.
The film is made old-fashioned, but with a lot of outdoor filming + expressive play by Connery and Kane + god-fighting (which plays absolutely into the hands of the film, makes it all-planetary, despite Kipling’s “nationalist contempt” – in contrast, for example, to the film no less titled director George Cukor “Bhovani Station”).
Excellent technical work is accompanied by the production of “Oscar-winning” Houston. The film does not let you get bored for all the timekeeping + all this creation is accompanied by an excellent soundtrack of the great Maurice Jarre, who wrote compositions for such films as “Doctor Zhivago”, “Lawrence of Arabia” and many others.
In my memory, the film is imprinted as one of the best baddie movies with elements of adventure and strong technical and acting work. Unfortunately, in recent years it is rare to see such a strong film in the traditions of the genre, but the main thing is not to try to despair, because there is still much to come!
Adults and a more meaningful look are always more comfortable watching old movies, in which much attention was paid to the hidden meaning that was put during the creation of the picture. One of these is a film based on Rudyard Kipling’s short story of the same name, The Man Who Wanted to Be King.
This is the story of two enterprising soldiers of the British army who climbed into such places, where the uneducated and naive inhabitants began to consider them superior beings. Naturally, our heroes, who gave the best years of their lives to Her Majesty’s service, could not but take advantage of this. And then there is a bunch of temptations: jewelry, luxury, women, and most importantly – Power!
It is a pleasure to watch not only real Moroccan landscapes shot without the slightest hint of computer graphics, but also the main actors - Sean Connery and Michael Kane, who simply admire their skill, turning even boring dialogue into intense drama. Yes, their heroes look at life differently, their minds work differently, but at the same time they act in such a way that you begin to doubt, are they crooks?
I am not at all sorry that I discovered this film so late, since it is now coming to the realization that it is unlikely that there will be an equally high-quality analogue with the current “computer” films, which are only measured by the quality of graphics on the green screen.
9 out of 10
Whatever happens, we have got, and they have not.
Colonial India, attractive and dangerous, a place of fusion of civilizations. In the market, cork soldiers' helmets turn yellow, sweaty brown heads stick out of modern English dress. Locals are trying to adapt to the introduced order, Europeans – at least somehow accept the exotic traditions of the aborigines. Somewhere here roams the chief bard of British imperialism, Rudyard Kipling; somewhere else you can find echoes of the campaigns of Alexander the Great, who, in the best Hollywood style, of course, was a Mason. Two cheerful adventurers who left Her Majesty’s service, Daniel Drevott and Peachey Carnegan, try to organize an expedition to conquer the mysterious Kafiristan with British weapons and ingenuity, a land of which only 33 idols are known to worship there. Daniel and Peachey plan to be 34th and 35th.
Magnificent acting duo Connery and Kane, picturesque Hindu Kush views, classic adventure tape. In the director’s chair – the legend of cinema John Houston, a man of Hemingway warehouse. (You can see his haircut in Eastwood’s White Hunter Black Heart.) At the heart of the production is Kipling’s early story with a constant message for his work: the metropolitan areas do should be ruled by the natives, but it should not interfere with their way of life. (The text itself is easily found on the Web, but only in a pre-revolutionary edition ... translated from the Indian language.) Houston successfully pushes the boundaries of the original: enhances the writer’s participation in action (the remarkable role of Christopher Plummer), creates a believable atmosphere of the era. Kipling’s controversial empire, combined with the filmmaker’s masculine character and awareness of the historical outcome of colonial expansion, betray a complex tone where white supremacy is intertwined with Anglo-Saxon courage and longing for lost greatness. And let this tonality go deep into the background, releasing the plot twists and turns to the foreground, it is she who determines the tape to a greater extent. And the scene in which a well-fed Indian in a three-suit and turban under the eyes of two gentlemen eats a watermelon in the most unpleasant way, is one of the best illustrations of the colonial world in cinema.
Today’s viewer finds it hard to appreciate Britain’s imperial ambitions, and it’s hard to understand the longing for their loss. Cecil Rhodes, an English politician of the period, wrote: It is a pity that we cannot reach the stars shining above us in the night sky! I would annex the planets if I could; I often think about that. I am sad to see them so clear and yet so far away. The high poetry of these lines is unconditional. The picture of Houston is also poetic in its own way, but the story that formed its basis is perceived differently over time. This characteristic Kiplingian parable, almost a century later, turned into a painful reminder of the glorious days when the sun could not set over the Empire, and the gentleman east of Suez, against all odds, remained a gentleman.
How do you divide three mules and five Afghans so that there are two Englishmen left?
Honestly, how can you resist the temptation to watch a film in which the main characters are two beautiful English actors, one of whom became famous for playing a charming spy under the code number “007”, and the second was his antipode, who played no less charming and charismatic killers? Add to this the fact that the film is an adaptation of the novel of such a wonderful writer as Rudyard Kipling and it becomes clear that there are no forces against their own curiosity, and is it worth it? After all, Sean Connery and Michael Caine are such actors who are able to pull even the average movie to the proper level thanks to their charisma and acting skills. So from a film with such a cast you expect milk rivers, and sour shores and ... the film does not disappoint the hopes and expectations placed on it. Does that happen? One way or another, this is the man who wanted to be king.
The story that is told in this film tells about the adventures, and sometimes misadventures, of two English soldiers who gave the best years of their lives defending the interests of the Queen of England and in gratitude for this received ... a certificate of honor? No, you gotta do that, huh? To give up your aspirations and dreams in order to defend the interests of the English crown, somewhere in India and instead of a decent pension and a house in a warm country to get some pitiful piece of paper that can not even be wiped properly? Injustice? Oh, what a mess! And of course, two friends are not going to continue to put up with such arbitrariness, and therefore leave the armed forces and want to go into private business, namely, to become kings in one small but proud country - Kafiristan. The country, which at one time was able to conquer only Alexander the Great and not because there lived soldiers who alone could cope with a dozen armed people aki Spartans, but because this country is very difficult to get, and resources as such there are not. But our heroes do not hesitate, and they go on a long and dangerous journey to fool the gullible natives, to get riches, to find beautiful girls for their wives and thereby get what they deserve - love and recognition. Will the heroes of Michael Caine and Sean Connery succeed, or will they die ingloriously in the snow of cold and starvation? Look and find out.
And yes, there is a lot to see in this film, because the director is easy, and I would even say walking, to show the viewer such a mysterious and attractive India. Naturally, it is such for those people who have never been there, but something tells me that not many users of this wonderful site can boast of having visited a country where the cow is a sacred animal, where girls walk with a dot on their forehead called sari, and incredible in beauty temples, so grab a moment. This film also boasts the residents of Kafiristan, so simple and direct, but at the same time so ferocious and bloodthirsty. These are people who are devoid of any sane infrastructure, these are people who are ready to slaughter their neighbor just for a slanting glance in their direction, these are people who are very devout and for them the will of their God is not even the law, but the truth in the final instance, and therefore the “blind” monks living in the ancient city are inviolable.
But the most important thing about this film is the story of a strong male friendship between the characters of Michael Caine and Sean Connery, who are always ready to cover each other’s back and give a hand to the other. These are people who, although they have different views on life, will never put gold, women or power above friendship. These are people who, although they are crooks and crooks, but at the same time they are much more decent than “honest” people. At the same time, the friendship of Michael Caine and Sean Connery is shown easily and at ease, and they do not try to throw the viewer in the face as something incredible, and from the vision of all this I want to stand up and applaud both the actors and the entire crew.
Summing up, I want to say that this film turned out to be smart, exciting, dramatic, but most importantly, it turned out to be alive. And therefore I recommend this film to all those who at one time liked such films as “Lawrence of Arabia”, “The Postman” and other films, where in addition to fascinating adventures there are living and memorable heroes with a difficult fate and no less complex motivation.
9 out of 10
A wonderful film that is worth watching, perhaps, every lover of the adventure genre. The two-plus hours that the film is going on look in one breath. Although, spoiled by modern special effects, computer graphics and deafening explosions, viewers are unlikely to like this picture.
I found it by accident while looking for films featuring a brilliant actor, Shawn Connery. At first, the film caught the spirit of adventure and adventure, but something else was missing. The battle scenes looked comedic and uninteresting, but the acting game Connery and Cain pulled out the whole film on itself. Also, it is worth noting, wonderful shooting on wildlife. After modern films, where nature has replaced graphics or cardboard decorations, the eye rejoices in the excellent landscapes of mountains and steppes.
But the best part of the picture is the second half. She has absolutely no complaints. Acting game Connery surpasses itself, important issues begin to arise. Why does he do that and not that? Because of greed or something more? Emotions cannot leave indifferent. Well, the final scene on the rope bridge cannot leave anyone indifferent. I was almost tearful. This is not Hachiko, squeezing a tear forcibly, but the most dramatic finale. Of the many films I’ve seen, only two have been able to achieve this effect: The Man Who Wanted to Be King and The Untouchables, where Shawn Connery’s play was brilliant. This proves once again that Sir Sean Connery is not for nothing considered one of the best actors in the history of cinema. His play, as well as a good script, make you forget about funny military scenes and other trifles and appreciate this film.
10 out of 10
I will continue to attack the British November program. After yesterday’s utter disappointment, I didn’t want to go back to the last two films. But since I promised to watch and appreciate all the films, it is worth exploring new horizons. Today I chose the movie of the 70s, which is already pleased with the color, at least. Honestly, I didn’t feel the British spirit at all, but the spirit of classic Hollywood flew epically over the desert landscapes.
This is probably the best film from that collection so far. I liked him the most. Although the long timing and the dullest start were not encouraging at all. When two British soldiers decided to go to Kafiristan and win the throne of the king, I completely lost my spirit. With my "love" for the military genre, another evening could be spoiled. But after a dull journey through the snowy highlands, more lively actions began. There is no war here, thank God. It's just standard village fights. The plot interested me only when Daniel Dravot was mistaken for the son of a deity, and he did not resist the honors of an uneducated people. And who would renounce unlimited power and wealth?
The second half pulls out the whole movie. If you cut a long introduction, you get a pretty cute story about how one person impersonates someone who is not. It is funny that Dravot, who first wanted to prove his mortality, believed in his exceptionalism. Young Sean Connery was incredibly good at that. I liked him a lot more than Michael Kane, who got a more savvy character. The ending was good, too. It is not for nothing that the soldiers in their contract wrote that they would abstain from alcohol and women. That's what ruined them. Well, it's not a bad movie. But for a boring introduction, I will remove a couple of points.