The Ghost and the Darkness

I just returned from the Field Museum in Chicago where they have the two lions who are the stars of this film. They are stuffed and not very threatening in their their traditional natural history diorama. The gift shop sells plush toys of these creatures. So let me get this straight. These things ate an alarming number of unfortunate people, but have become cuddly toys that kids might sleep with at night. I guess time heals all.

Anyway, back to the movie. I loved the visual being of this film. The shots of Africa are remarkable. An incredible sense of threat is wonderfully created. The camera is used masterfully. The acting is quite good and the jump factor is quite high (although it is overdone a bit). Since this is based on but not really true to the actual events, the people can be forgiven for being so damned stupid. I described this to a friend as "Jaws" with lions. These particular felines seem to have the dangerous movie animal syndrome. The are sentient, they are vengeful, they have motivations beyond their basic animal needs, and they are nearly supernatural. Despite the danger realized by the principal characters, these lions are able to wreak their havoc anyway. While the scene is impressive, the fact that they get into a hospital while people are at red alert is hard to swallow. Either that, or they never really take seriously what these creatures have become. I enjoyed it mostly. Remember, lions know that people are stupid. If that's the case, how about a meal. If you don't take this too seriously, enjoy the ride. It will keep you on the edge of your seat.

"The Ghost & the Darkness" is a very good adventure flick set in Africa in the late 19th century, and is based on a true incident. Kilmer plays an engineer sent to build a railroad bridge over the Tsavo river. Work is halted by attacks from two man-eating lions which terrorize the workers. Seems these lions are exhibiting behavior not seen in lions before, i.e. they appear to be hunting for sport ('the Ghost' and 'the Darkness' are the names given to the 2 lions by the native workers). Douglas plays a famous renegade American hunter, a tragically scarred Civil War veteran, hired by the railroad to kill the lions.

Good adventure, well-paced, with stunning photography of the African countryside. The movie has an "R" rating which I can't figure out; perhaps because of the bloodiness of the lion dinner scenes (and lunch, and breakfast, and between-meal snacks....). I have seen many PG13's which have more blood & guts than this.

I give it a straight A; my 10-year old son gave it an enthusiastic thumbs-up also).

True story, two lions killed a hundred railroad workers in east Africa in 1898. Col. Pattersson is sent from England to supervise the building of a bridge in Uganda across the Tsavo river. He ends up a bit over his head when the lions show up. He teams up with famed hunter Charles Remmington to bring down the cats from hell.

It wasn't until I heard what other people had to say that I realized that The Ghost in the Darkness is half way to a Jaws rip-off. But of course this is a real story. I've even seen the hides of the two lions preserved in Chicago's natural history museum. They were actually maneless, but for obvious reasons this film gives its killer fuzzballs the hunk hair which makes Lions stand out from any other cat.

I do know that cats are generally more aggressive than dogs towards people (because of their rogue personalities), but these lions are unnaturally ferocious. They are more monster than animal, which is the intended approach of course. Sometimes though it gets a little unbelievable. One scene in particular, involves the cats ambushing a dorm of about two dozen, all are killed. Regardless of their size or ferocity, are we supposed to believe that two lions can kill that many people in thirty seconds flat without one escaping. It's a tent for god sakes.

There are a few other problems with The Ghost and the Darkness. Tom Wilkinson's performance is annoying. this is too lame a role for such a good actor. I didn't think Michael Douglas was that great either. He plays the role with too much Indiana Jones in him. A there are also a couple of scenes which are just playing goofy.

In general though, The Ghost and the Darkness actually amounts to an entertaining monster movie. I'll give the most credit to the animal trainers, because these lions give great performances. I wouldn't call it a scary movie but it certainly has its grizzly parts which might shake you up some. The Ghost and the Darkness bridges the gap between Thriller, horror, and adventure, and I'm pretty sure it'll give you what you want (assuming this is your kind of movie)

A story of Col. Patterson building a bridge over the river Tsavo in Africa, and fighting the couple of killer lions and builders scared to death. Firstly it's the views. Africa's all around with yellow, sun burnt, high grown grass moving in the wind (you can smell the scent almost) and the workers who can cast a threat to Patterson if he fails their expectations of killing the lions. Secondly Val Kilmer's performance. He's not acting, he's just there fighting the obstacles. Thirdly Mike Douglas's influential way of telling things. He's more convincing than in 'Basic Instinct' and sorry Oliver, 'The Wall Street'. His macho appearance doesn't interfere with the main plot but comes to be part of it. Last not least it's Jerry Goldsmith's music. I don't know how he did it but he made it perfect. You just have to sense it to feel it. One of my favourites.

Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

5 word summary

Man-eating Lions Terrorize African village

The Ghost and the Darkness is very interesting movie. It's based on a true story, but really who ever knows how much of that story is true. The story of 2 lions attacking the workers of a rail road and the hunt for those lions by Patterson are both known true and not necessarily that exciting. However, how clever and seemingly hell bent on killing Patterson and the other men the lions are almost brings this movie into a Horror genre than just the adventure/thriller.

Director Stephen Hopkins did a very good job at building tension and really making this a heart pounding thriller. The problem however with the film, and what knocked down the rating for me, was the acting. Val Kilmer, who can be good, and Michael Douglas, who can be amazing, both had mediocre performances at best. Kilmer didn't seem to care about the film or his character. Douglas almost over acted but it still was poor.

With the acting aside it was a very enjoyable film. A real thrill ride. Its one of the best films I've seen about killer animals, besides Jaws of course. The fact that it's "based on a true story" brings a sense of terror not usually accompanied with similar films.

Like I said its no Jaws, but it's better than Anaconda

8/10