Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

xdguy Have heard that one of the lions ended up in one of the two leading men's family home foyer in Oregon while the second lion is in the Smithsonian Museum in D.C. One lions head was at the five foot mark while standing flat foot on all fours. Man said the movie was "spot on" save for one part he didn't like.

Vimacone Hollywood pictures based on true stories tend to be a mixed bag. History buffs will be quick to point out historical inaccuracies. But one must remember that a motion picture cannot be 100% true to the events that the film was based on and some liberties must be taken to make the film cohesive and entertaining. And as a history buff myself, I always look into the actual events behind the film.Colonel Patterson's account of the two man-eater's of Tsavo is an unusual and interesting account in British and natural history. Because of the unusual nature of this event, such an account lends itself perfectly to a motion picture, even if some parts are embellished.The film is told from the perspective of Samuel, a native who worked as a railroad worker with Colonel Patterson. The events took place in 1898, almost a century before the movie adaptation. Aside from some embellishments and Michael Douglas' character (who was fictitious), the events as described by the real Colonel Patterson are largely based on his memoir of his experience with the rogue lions and the trials he faced in managing railroad workers of different backgrounds to work together.In addition to the suspense and action that involves the lions, some of the best sequences involve the interactions among Patterson, Remington, and Samuel; All done with great dialogue. Samuel explains situations and the characters' backgrounds with terminologies that his people in the time frame would understand, but it is still conveyed very effectively to the audience. His narration that takes place in the aftermath of an attack gives insight to the fear and perspectives of the workers of varying backgrounds. You really feel their intense fear. Remington, a skilled but cocky American hunter, brings a minor sense of comic relief to a tense situation. He seems confident that these are just ordinary lions that can be easily located and killed, but soon sees otherwise.This makes for a great suspense and adventure picture with some memorable dialogue and scenes. And I also recommend reading The Man Eaters of Tsavo (the official account of the events) in addition to the movie; As truth can be more interesting than fiction.

paiello-44319 Wow this was a great idea for a movie but what a trainwreck. When movie" reviewers talk about a bad screenplay this "movie should be near the top of the list. Acting was almost as bad and in general I usually like Val Kilmer and love Michael Douglas. The plot and the screenplay was laughably inept. The bumbling idiots couldn't just dig a pit or something and put a bleeding cow in the bottom of it. Problem solved. Oh wait the lions were so smart cause they were the "Ghost and the Darkness". About half way through the movie, Michael Douglas appears as I guess the great white hunter. Sorry Michael you were completely unconvincing. The first scene with him, he has this mostly thick southern drawl which immediately disappears for the rest of the movie. Same with Val Kilmer. He has a trace of a poorly executed English accent in the beginning of the movie which quickly disappears. There was just one unbelievable scene after another and my sig. other and I were saying, dear Lord please let it end. The lion sneaks into the camp and drags Michael Douglass off (thankfully) near the end of the movie. Val Kilmer is in the next tent and of course he doesn't hear a peep. I could go on all night. By halfway through the movie we were rooting hard for the lions. There were a few cinematography scenes worth seeing but that it. Should change the category to a disaster flick!

BobbyT24 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.