Sorry, this movie sucks

i must have seen a different film!!

best movie i've ever seen.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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

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 However, this movie really shows itself as just not outdated but fitting to the time it was set in, and it delves deep into the follies of man.Many men thought it wise to subjugate and manipulate men less cunning than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.

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.

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.