Simply A Masterpiece

Good concept, poorly executed.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

first its really nice and good that sometimes very original stories come out of Hollywood, a movie in Africa at the end of the 19th century is not necessarily what would attract the most viewers (i guess), so i give 10/10 for the originality of the story.great atmosphere and on-site filming in Africa, this was really enjoyable.the movie starts great, but then slowly it feels like its forcing itself to go forward, the story telling becomes less and less smooth.michael douglas an actor i love i thought didn't act well in this movie, may be because i am so used to watching him as a NY socialite millionaire CEO but still i feel he didn't act well.finally, i thought the way the lions were depicted is wrong and ''racist'', lions are wild animals who eat meat so they hunt which is totally normal, however in the movie they are depicted as evil monsters with a black and dark heart, whereas they are only doing what animals do, hunt for food.

Released in 1996 and directed by Stephen Hopkins from William Goldman's script, "The Ghost and the Darkness " is an African adventure based on the true events of two man-eating lions responsible for the deaths of scores of bridge construction workers on the Kenya-Uganda Railway from March through December 1898. The lions were dubbed The Ghost and The Darkness by the workers and thought perhaps to be demons. Val Kilmer plays real-life military engineer Lt. Colonel John Henry Patterson, who was commissioned to carry out the project. The addition of Michael Douglas as a charismatic great white hunter, Remington, is fictional, as Patterson pretty much hunted and killed the rogue lions on his own. Some claim that Douglas ruined the movie by using his clout to enlarge his part, but his character is only in the movie for 49 minutes as it is. Another deviation is that neither of the male lions had huge manes, as depicted; Tsavo lions possess either minimal manes or none at all. Interestingly, the two lions are on display at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Patterson claimed that these big cats were responsible for up to 135 deaths; however, an official paper states that 'only' about 28–31 killings can be verified, but this figure does not take into account all those who were killed but not eaten by lions. I've always had mixed feelings about this movie, which can be witnessed in the fact that some people lambaste it (e.g. Roger Ebert's scathing review) while others laud it as a great or near-great adventure flick (the movie won an Academy award for Best Sound Effects). I'm in the middle. I think the actors and their characters are great. Kilmer curiously won a Razzie for his performance, which is inexplicable because he makes a great protagonist, taking the material serious with a low-key performance rather than a melodramatic one. Douglas takes the more megalomaniacal approach, but I'm pretty sure that's the way a lot of great white hunters were, cartoony though it may be. The locations, costuming and cinematography are also great, as are the lions and the creature F/X. The problem lies with the story, or the way it's told. The entire movie revolves around the lions attacking the personnel and the corresponding hunt to kill them. This is fine except that there's not enough human interest for a feature film of 110 minutes. A solid half hour could have easily been cut, making for a more compelling watch. Better yet, they should've given the characters greater dimension with more poignant dialogue and character-defining episodes, as was done in "Jaws" (1975), for example. I suppose it doesn't help that there are no primary female characters, although Emily Mortimer has a bit part as Patterson's wife.ADDITIONAL CAST: Tom Wilkinson plays the bastage financier of the project while John Kani and Om Puri appear as foremen. Bernard Hill plays the requisite doctor while Brian McCardie is on hand as a British supervisor. The movie was shot in Kenya and South Africa. GRADE: C+

Nice story set in Africa based on a real life story about a construction site in the Tsavo region terrorized by two African lions The story is nice Val Kilmer acts perfect as Paterson and Michael Douglas as Remington is good too the movie is nice, edging and scary i mean, after all, i believe that after been eaten by a great white shark think about been killed by a lion must be the second scariest thing...Really nice movie and, like i said, think that this was actually a real story it scares you more because "that happened" which means that nature can be truly scary... real but scary...Watch it if ya can...

I'll forget facts for a moment about "The Man-eaters of Tsalvo" and focus on this entertaining story about two man-eater lions thirsting for blood on the African plains in the middle of a race to build the first African transcontinental railway system. I had watched this movie the year it came out in 1996. It looks as good now as it did when new since it was set in the late-1890s and looks like it. Gorgeous, magical cinematography. The setting is lush and very African-specific, as it should be. The main actors, background characters, and direction were perfectly executed. Magnificent actually. I had also read that William Goldman (screenwriter) had written this true story based on a 1910 book by the main character, Colonel John Patterson. It's scary, and this event really happened. Just not entirely as written for the screen...Basic story: Col. Patterson (Val Kilmer) is a charismatic and visionary bridge builder who has a tight time-frame to build a railroad across a specific river in Africa to keep Great Britain ahead of the French and German railroads in a race for African dominance in the days of empires. If he succeeds, it's a knighthood. If he fails, his career is finished by his sadistic benefactor. Once he arrives, almost immediately workers start mysteriously disappearing. They realize a lion is attacking them. What they don't realize is this is no mere hungry lion. It's a man-eater. And there are two of them. Through a series of events, they hire a legendary hunter, Charles Remington (Michael Douglas), to track down and kill the blood-thirsty beasts. What transpires is a cat-and-mouse game (pun intended) where who is hunted and who is the prey is always in question until the very end.This is a good movie. Don't get me wrong. I watched it again last night for a reason. However, had this story not started with the narrator telling us, "...And no matter how outrageous it seems, all of it is true," it would have been easier to take. That part is not factual. For one --- there is no Michael Douglas character in real-life. When the cover of the poster and DVD cover shows two main characters -- and one of them isn't factual -- yet your narrator says everything we see really happened... You see where I'm going with this. Had they just stated, "This is based on a very real, very scary story in the heart of Africa," I would have understood artistic license. Douglas was fascinating as the fictional Remington btw and well worth the addition to the script. Dramatically, the story was enhanced in some very keen ways. Unfortunately, that "true story" part keeps rearing it's ugly head. Oh well. Minor issues I guess.Overall, this is a very enjoyable movie adapted for the screen. Kilmer is terrific as Patterson (although his Irish (I think?) accent comes and goes at mysterious times). Douglas is mesmerizing as the mercurial Remington. The supporting natives and landscapes are breathtaking and fantastic. Just don't go in with expectations this is the entire true story of "The Man-eaters of Tsalvo". You'll have to read the book for the facts. Watch this movie expecting to see a stunning African tale of overcoming terror in the jungle by an unstoppable force of nature and you will be rewarded with a first-class production. Think "Jaws" in the African plains. It's that terrifying for the natives. 8.5 out of 10 from that perspective. But I rate it a 7 out of 10 simply because it lauds the facts openly and proudly but ignores them for the production. Pretend this is an original, well-written, FICTIONAL screenplay that could possibly happen in real-life (because it did) and enjoy the show. Worth watching for sure.