The Ghost and the Darkness
The Ghost and the Darkness
R | 11 October 1996 (USA)
The Ghost and the Darkness Trailers

Sir Robert Beaumont is behind schedule on a railroad in Africa. Enlisting noted engineer John Henry Patterson to right the ship, Beaumont expects results. Everything seems great until the crew discovers the mutilated corpse of the project's foreman, seemingly killed by a lion. After several more attacks, Patterson calls in famed hunter Charles Remington, who has finally met his match in the bloodthirsty lions.

Reviews
yvesdemaria

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.

... View More
Wuchak

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+

... View More
brunofedericoluque

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...

... View More
kgwrote-854-104240

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.

... View More