Did you people see the same film I saw?

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The Tsavo Man-Eaters were a pair of notorious man-eating lions responsible for the deaths of a number of construction workers on the Kenya-Uganda Railway from March through December 1898. For the longest time, it seem like nobody can stop them. It wasn't until, bridge engineer and an experienced game hunter, Col. John Henry Patterson came aboard, that the killing finally stop. Without spoiling the movie, too much, from all of the films that was inspired by this historical event, such as 1952's 'Bwana Devil" & 1959's 'Killers of Kilimanjaro', this film is most accurate to Patterson's in-depth account of his experiences with the lion; despite only being loosely based on it. However, Patterson's book "The Man-Eaters of Tsavo" might not be accurate, as well. It is possible, if not probable, the count of 140 deaths may have been trumped up a bit to sell more books. After all, modern scientific analysis estimated that both animals ate the equivalent of 35 humans last 3 months of their lives. This reduced total was also based on Colonel Patterson's original journal, and Colonel Patterson's original publication 1907 report. Yet, this research does not disprove the claims that the attacks happen, year long. Honestly, if you multiply 35 times 4 you get to 140. So the whole 135 people killed thing seems very plausible if the other assumptions are true. Plus, the research doesn't disprove the claim that the lion ate also locals, or the claim that they were killing, just merely to kill. Still, the book got a few things right that the movie did not. Some good examples is the fact that Patterson did all the hunting, by himself with little to no help from the Maasai natives. In truth, the Maasai were little help, as they felt that the building of the railroad, interfere with their normal lives. So, Indian workers were made to work on the project. Also, the fame hunter character, Charles Remington that the British company brought in the film; also highly fictionalized. I guess, Val Kilmer was just that boring as the lead as Colonel Patterson, that the screenwriter, William Goldman create another character, just to get the full of energy, actor Michael Douglas into the film to bring some life into the project. While, Douglas indeed brought, something new to the table as the fanciful, fictitious hunter; in production, the working relationship between Douglas and the director, Stephen Hopkins became very stressful and tense because of that. Since, Douglas was also producer, and have a say on the final film, the movie had to be completely recut in post-production removing 45 minutes of scenes in order for him to have more screen time. This also explains why, certain story parts go nowhere and plot holes developed. Because of this, Hopkins expressed disappointment with the final cut of the film, as it doesn't explain the slavery subplot that help explain, why these animals were attacking, as the slave trade route, contributed to a considerable number of abandoned bodies on the way. Despite that, in my opinion, this movie is still unbelievable good. I'm not lion. Trust me! I like the fact that only one scene involving an animatronic lion. All the other shots were used using two real life lions named Bongo and Caeser, who best known for, appearing in 1997's 'George of the Jungle'. It's quite scary to know that. If there is one thing, I kinda wish, the movie could had done, better. It would be the point, that the lions that attack the Kenya-Uganda Railway were in fact, maneless. So, it was kinda jarring, to see, these types of lions, appearing outside their normal environmental. Plus, the film doesn't really does a good job, explaining how these beast got through the boma or thorn fences. Despite that, this movie action certainly fit in with the Western notion of the "epic adventure movie" of that time period. The cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond was just as breath-taking. It really did felt like a safari, when watching this movie. The beauty of Africa and the dangers lurking underneath is represented by the tall brown Savannah grass, made it, very suspenseful. The unseen animals seem to be almost supernaturally cunning and stealth. It really works as a horror movie. The gore and special visual effect were just as good. Added to that, was the music from composter, Jerry Goldsmith was equally as magnificent. It's very suspenseful. Even the pacing wasn't that bad. Overall: I have to say, I would recommend watching this movie to just about anyone. It's an absolutely thrilling movie to watch in your lion den. So check it out.

Over the years I have watched this movie a good number of times. None was as wonderful as the first the time. It was one of the most frightening movies I have seen. I have watched it many more times because the story is so fascinating. Part of it is the fact that the story is based on fact. It does not follow Colonel Patterson's book completely, but the changes make for a better screen story. The biggest change from reality is the big game hunter never existed. Some of the movie was actually filmed in Tsavo where the story took place. Most of the rest was filmed in South Africa. Beautiful scenery and background for the action. All in all it is well acted. A wonderful adventure flick.

There's no question that this film was inspired by Jaws which morally speaking, was pretty feeble. A great white shark is doing what it does naturally-eat to survive, and humans are taking the fish and leaving it with no choice but to eat humans who leave their natural habitat and go in the water. Asking for it. We have a shark hunter Quint, whose mates were left to die by the US military, and instead of directing his anger at them-he directs it at sharks. This film is in the same vein. You have two lions who we now know were not being maniacs but just seeking to survive. Humans come along and build an unnatural structure-a railroad--which provides them with easy access to a food source.The movie shows some semblance of morality by not making Patterson into the old fashioned big game hunter--but that is what he was. Now let's look at reality. As of 2015, great white sharks are near extinction. Lions also, are dwindling thanks to hunters and loss of habitat. There are more lions in zoos and canned hunting ranches than in the wild.Who are the real monsters? The film presents the lions as if they have the malicious maniacal spirit of humans which is just slanderous and false--not to mention morally obscene given the state of the wilds.Another oddity is that the Muslim and hindu workers are not presented equally. The hindus are anonymous-and made subject of ridicule because of their sacred cow beliefs. The muslims are presented as the sensible ones. Obviously this wouldn't have survived the script stage after 2001. If you want to see real lions and how they are not like humans, check out the 1981 film Roar--which is far more entertaining.

Exciting movie – well acted and brilliantly directed. The attention to detail going into this production is amazing. It seems modern day monsters have to be ridiculously strong; impossible to kill and horribly frightening. I guess a rule of thumb now-a-days would be, 'The scarier the CGI-ghoul, the bigger the shock value and bigger profits.' Nothing like that was used here - just a marriage of talent and skill. I have to say that this flick ended up being a nail-biting-tingle. Brilliant filming, directing and acting transformed two relatively timid lions into some scary hairy beasts (I - uh - guess they were already that.) In order to get a rise out of the audience when the two monster kitties made their approach, everything had to work perfectly. Well in this movie – everything did work flawlessly and the scare factor was outstanding. Without a doubt, Stephen Hopkins is a very talented director and skilled visionary. Of course it did not hurt having two terrifically talented stars such as…Val 'I'll Be Your Huckleberry' Kilmer and Michael Douglas. These two guys were really spot-on. The whole movie is a sight of beauty as well. I highly recommend anyone to watch. It does not have the flash and pace of the movies cranked out now-a-days, but it is still a pretty good ride. Even though the story is loosely based on actual occurrences…the idea is there…and pretty harrowing.