The Ghost and the Darkness

The Ghost and the Darkness_720p(480P)

source: The Ghost and the Darkness

Bears the putrid stench of Hollywood sensationalism. Terribly chopped and incoherent. Little resemblance to original story.

Fairly well-made and effective horror-adventure epic maintains interest and is smashingly photographed. But how many times can we possibly sit through another variation on this type of story (man vs. animal) before getting fed up? Based on true incidents but painfully short on originality, the script is essentially one more rehash of the "Jaws" formula, and all the movie's positive qualities (including strong performances by the leads) can't make us ignore that problem.

"The Ghost and the Darkness" mostly seems like an action movie, focusing on the true story of an Irish colonel (Val Kilmer) who got commissioned to oversee construction of a bridge in Kenya in 1898, only to come in conflict with two ferocious lions. Still, the movie does have some charm. Maybe its in the obvious cleverness of the lions, as though they're ten steps ahead of all the humans. Or maybe it's Michael Douglas's (fictional) hunter, who seems to be channeling Dirty Harry. Or, failing both of those, it's the fine look at the landscape. I have no doubt that the colonel exaggerated some -- or a lot -- of the events when he wrote the story. As can be expected, the colonizers are the main focus. But whatever the case, it's still a pretty fun movie. Also starring John Kani, Bernard Hill (Theoden in the "Lord of the Rings" movies), Tom Wilkinson and Emily Mortimer. So yes, the builders of the British Empire SHOULD be afraid of the local wildlife.

I'm not sure where my disappointment lay with "The Ghost and the Darkness". There's something definitely off with Val Kilmer, who feels like this is his first time at-bat (it's a lifeless performance, with a sometimes Irish accent). I've definitely seen better from the man. Michael Douglas ably takes the reins halfway in, and plays it larger than life, but he's melodramatic in comparison. The big scary lions at the center of this thing are filmed very conventionally, lots of closeups of gaping maw, snarling, but nothing unnatural. They're supposed to be possessed - evil, if you will - but it's two lions with bloody jaws, leaping through the air, etc. And screaming railroad workers. It's not all that convincing. Mostly, it's a tepid adventure movie. Two bi names stuck with two bloodthirsty kitty cats. I'm terrified of huge cats myself, so it's saying something that they came off less than threatening. 5/10

An entertaining man vs. nature flick in which two men (Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas) try to fight off a lion killing people in Africa. Some tense moments heighten the fun and though it has been done before, this film has some very strong leads and the photography is excellent. 4/5 stars - John Ulmer

Dramatization of the true account in Tsavo of two ferocious, man-eating lions who terrorized a group of African bridge builders in the late 1890s and were thought to be a caricature of The Devil himself. More specifically, the story focuses on a renowned British soldier (Kilmer) who must abandon his wife and unborn child to ensure completion of the bridge. Eventually, he teams with a wandering American game hunter (Douglas) in an attempt to try and kill the beasts. Starts off with a bang, with an exciting setup, intense and violent action scenes, and edge of your seat suspense, but it unfortunately stops dead in its tracks and grows more tiresome and predictable as it goes along. **½

On paper this would sound like a horror filmmakers dream and I had been reluctant to check it out, at the time of release. I'm happy to say I have viewed this film many times since. It's quite annoying that the producers haven't transferred this onto a decent HD or 4K. The film is unique and a lot of fun. Val Kilmer was coming off a lot of bad press and this film was a much needed hit for him. Michael Douglas is solid and he gives this film more credibility than it deserved. The director has done a great job and it's a shame him and Douglas clashed on the final product, a longer version wouldn't hurt. A favourite film of mine.

I have watched this movie around 4 times now and still find it riveting. It contains great wildlife panoramas/scenery and I think the story line is well developed and interesting. Being based on a true story gives it extra appeal. The acting is exceptional by all. I have one question though which maybe someone can answer. Is the character of Charles Remington (Michael Douglas) real or fictional ? I thought I had heard of Remington before but can find no information regarding him on the WWW. There is also no mention of Remington in all the info on the Field Museum (Chicago Illinois) site for the TSAVO man eaters. That site states that Patterson killed both lions (on two separate occasions).I am inclined to think that the info there is historical and true. Does anyone know anything about Charles Remington ? Great movie. I recommend it to all.