SummaryTwo British former soldiers decide to set themselves up as Kings in Kafiristan, a land where no white man has set foot since Alexander the Great.
Directed By:John Huston
Written By:John Huston, Gladys Hill, Rudyard Kipling
The Man Who Would Be King
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
91
User score
Generally Favorable
7.5
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
91
94% Positive
15 Reviews
15 Reviews
6% Mixed
1 Review
1 Review
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
100
An adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's tale of the follies of adventure--beautifully directed and shot (by Oswald Morris) and perfectly cast. [11 July 2003, p.C5]
100
John Huston's The Man Who Would Be King is swashbuckling adventure, pure and simple, from the hand of a master. It's unabashed and thrilling and fun.
User score
Generally Favorable
7.5
78% Positive
28 Ratings
28 Ratings
17% Mixed
6 Ratings
6 Ratings
6% Negative
2 Ratings
2 Ratings
Apr 13, 2025
8
Some strong performances in this film, although slightly dated. Good storyline, great backdrop. Kept me watching till the end. Worth a watch.
Sep 18, 2024
8
Sean Connery and Michael Caine play a pair of razor-sharp scoundrels, scamming their way through an east Asian joyride during the twilight of the 19th century. On a thoroughly unpredictable adventure, the duo constantly converts lemon to lemonade as they meander from a publisher's office in India to a fictional holy land in the desert. There, intending to conquer a few villages and live the high life, the stakes suddenly spike as they find themselves anointed saviors, kings and (eventually) gods. Connery and Caine, good friends away from the screen, bubble with chemistry throughout. Their relationship is essential, and that obvious bond lifts an already-ambitious screenplay into something greater than the sum of its parts. When viewed with contemporary eyes, the pace is a little slow, akin to similar films of the era, but that deliberate tempo reaps unique rewards. By lingering in the atmosphere and dutifully setting the stage, director John Huston expertly depicts the vast cultural differences between our conniving, almost-modern Brits and the ancient ways of life still at play in turn-of-the-century Asia. A fine example of old-style filmmaking, loaded with snappy humor, surprising plot turns, high stakes and creeping peril.
90
It's a wonderfully full and satisfying movie, with superb performances by Connery and Caine.
88
The film has genuine wit, an appealing sense of grandeur, and very little of the overt "philosophizing" that marred much of Huston's previous work. His eye for the strong, clear lines of landscape had never been sharper, and Oswald Morris's photography has a fine sun-saturated brilliance.
88
The way that power and wealth corrupt the spirit is a recurring theme in Huston's work, and it is served up here in a hugely entertaining fashion. [17 Mar 1995, p.11]
80
Huston revels in he opportunity for old-fashioned splendour, granting the film the sunset glow of Lawrence Of Arabia and the swashbuckling cadence worthy of the Errol Flynn days. It’s the artful mix of Kipling’s own writing, flights of fantasy with a political core.
50
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.
Mar 20, 2025
6
It's fine, but it falls into the all-too-specific trap that a lot of similar films of the era fall into — being way too slow of a flick for my attention-deficit-having ass. Personal preference is personal preference and, yes, I understand this is based on a 19th century short story, not some graphic novel or pulp comic strip. I guess I just require a little bit more meat to an adventure film than "watch as these two swindlers hoodwink a bunch of brown people." That's the other thing, too (and you're gonna run into this kind of issue with pretty much any material of Rudyard Kipling's lol); the problematicism is kinda just baked into this cake, and while I'm not necessarily the kind of person that's as sensitive to that sort of thing as I could be, even I found some elements to be worthy of a wince or two. Still, it's cool enough to see two UK film icons onscreen together for a decent chunk of time. Mildly worth the watch.
Sep 18, 2022
5
Overrated movie. The story is not realistic, its entertaining for the masses. The movie has some humour parts, sometimes it was good, sometimes childish. Good acting of course, you have 3 stars here. And great pictures with beautiful landscapes.
