In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

I didn't realize this was based on a true story (even though part of the opening narration hints at it), until I came to the review board here on IMDb. Apparently the film takes some liberties with the actual historical facts (don't they all?), but for the most part, the main story of two man-eating lions killing for pleasure in the Tsavo region of Kenya is fairly accurate. Depending on one's sources, those infamous man-eaters claimed the lives of anywhere between twenty eight and a hundred thirty five victims over a ten month reign of terror, which came to an end when Colonel John Henry Patterson killed both within a span of twenty days in December of 1898.There was something very oddly familiar in the movie to me, and I don't know how to explain it or what to chalk it up to. I keep a dream journal, and quite a few months ago, I had one in which a friend of mine and I were attacked by a tiger, and we sought refuge in a large wooden structure, pushing back against the large cat using a gate similar to what was shown in the movie. That scene in the movie is going to stay with me a while just because of the circumstances of that dream. I'd call it a nightmare except nothing terrible really happened, it just ended quite undramatically with the tiger running away. The other thing I thought about during that scene was how the old 'shooting fish in a barrel' concept didn't really work too well with those three hapless outlaws hired to kill the lion. Seriously, how could they miss as many times as they did?I'll tell you though, the scene that was really scary was the one showing the first victim Mahina (Henry Cele) being dragged out of camp by one of the man-eaters. Can you imagine what something like that would feel like, knowing that your end is coming soon and you can't do anything about it? That would be enough to cause one to die of fright. I would rank that scene right up there with some of the best horror flicks one could ever come across. It sends a chill even as I discuss it here.Regarding the rest of the movie, I don't know, it did seem to get bogged down in the latter half when Charles Remington (Michael Douglas) joined the hunt, and a lot of the filming had them lying in wait for something to happen with the Tsavo lions. One thought that occurred to me was the possibility that Dr. Hawthorne (Bernard Hill) might have sabotaged Patterson (Val Kilmer) by exchanging rifles with him, but nothing ever came of it, even though the weapon misfired or had no bullets. The only thing that came out of that scenario was Remington berating Patterson for giving up a weapon he was familiar with.

You watched Jaws with the same amount of fear for water like the protagonist? Well what about a equally great Lion hunt in the African Savannah? The Ghost and the Darkness is based on a true story, which only unfaithful parts are the ones that Michael Douglas (producer and one of the heroes of the movie) changed. He also edited 45 minutes of the movie out, so that his (side-)character could get more room, which is why director Stephen Hopkins isn't that fond of the final cut.It's even more of a sign of the great quality that the movie, regardless of this trivial facts, won a deserved Oscar and a cult- following.The cinematography is really effective in bringing you into the wild, African, atmosphere and showing you both the beautiful and the dangerous sides of the African continent.The fitting soundtrack is composed by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith and really effective.The visual effects are really good for the most part, and they used mostly real lions which are very well integrated into the shots with the actors, so that it feels fairly real for the most part.The production design is incredible and the movie feels really grand scaled.Also the actors are very good, Val Kilmer is a believable protagonist you root for and Michael Douglas (even though he sabotaged the movie behind the scenes) is really great as this experienced hunter.All in all a very effective, grand scaled adventure movie, based on a heroic and (mostly) true story...

In 1898 London, Robert Beaumont (Tom Wilkinson) has grand plans to build railroads to connect Africa. He hires Col. John Patterson (Val Kilmer) to build a bridge across river Tsavo in 5 months. The construction is behind schedule due to lion attacks. The camp includes supervisor Angus Starling (Brian McCardie), local liaison Samuel (John Kani) and cynical Dr. David Hawthorne (Bernard Hill). The workers are from conflicting groups of Africans and Indians. Nobody gets along. Patterson kills one lion but two large males attack later. The workers called them "The Ghost" and "The Darkness". Beaumont loses confidence in Patterson and hires famed hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas) and his Masai warriors.I don't think it's as horrible as some critics claim it to be. There's no way Val Kilmer deserves to be nominated for the Razzie although it was for both this and 'The Island of Dr. Moreau'. I actually like the first half with the conflicting workers. It reminds me of 'Hell on Wheels' which I like a lot. Michael Douglas comes in at around 45 minutes and he seems to be an old style character. There is something about him that annoyed me. The lion hunting has its moments but sometimes it is really bad. The climax happens in a fog and loses any possible tension. There is a ridiculous scene where a lion is literally climbing a tree. The last half has too many problems.

I watched the Ghost and the Darkness last night. And I have mixed feelings about it. It evokes some powerful imagery and emotions. I lived in Tanzania, Africa recently, serving in the Peace Corps. So it brought back a few powerful memories of Africa. So here it is, the good, the bad, and the ugly.First the good. The imagery and scenery of Africa (Kenya)- although shot in South Africa. The tall grass, the river, a few giraffes, trees, an African village, surrounding mountains. The cinematography is mostly good. That it is based on a true story of the building of the railroad in colonial Africa is also interesting. That there were two ferocious man eating lions that terrorized the builders, and that the engineer was able to kill them is a fascinating story. And the hides can be seen in a Chicago museum.I thought Michael Douglas's role added a lot to the movie, even if his character didn't occur in real life. He just kind of appears out of nowhere with a bunch of Maasai who are ready to hunt the lion. Douglas looks like a wild bush white man. The movie would have been a lot duller without him. The role of the Maasai hunting the lion is fascinating. I lived near Maasai in Tanzania, and this movie portrays some of their rituals which is entertaining and adds some realism.The story of the colonial period, building railroads, Africans and other nationalities, and the dangers and harshness of Africa are intriguing. The story does have an emotional pull to it. The African character adds some sense of authenticity to the movie. There are snippets of the language of Swahili which I know.Now the bad. The movie, like another reviewer said, is filled with clichés. I thought Val Kilmer's character was too neat- too confident, too self assured. His first night in Africa, after doing a drive by of giraffes earlier in the day, and he is already up in a tree shooting a lion with his first shot. The lions, while being based on a real story of two ferocious lions that truly did kill a bunch of people, are portrayed in a Jaws like fashion. I'm an environmental/conservationist. The problem with a movie like Jaws is it falsely portrays all sharks as vicious killers. This movie portrays all lions that way. I read recently that more people are killed taking selfies of themselves than are killed by sharks each year. We all know that lions and sharks are being decimated every year by rampant poaching and killing. So for someone who is knowledgeable about animal biology, the film is mostly rubbish.You won't get much insight into African culture here. There are mostly stereotypes of heroic whites, scared/submissive Africans and Asians, and the portrayal of the nice colonial master is unrealistic. The dialogue is pretty weak, the storyline isn't great, acting OK.Still entertaining to see Africa and lions but not a great movie.