The Ghost and the Darkness

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

Director: Stephen Hopkins

Writer: William Goldman

Cast: Val Kilmer, Michael Douglas, Tom Wilkinson, John Kani, Bernard Hill, Brian McCardie, Emily Mortimer, Om Puri, Henry Cele

Synopsis:

In 1896 Lt. Col. John Patterson (Kilmer) was hired by Robert Beaumont (Wilkinson) to build a railway bridge across the River Tsavo in East Africa. Soon after he arrives, workers start to go missing from the work camp. Patterson discovers that the disappearances are being caused by a pair of man-eating lions. After several unsuccessful attempts to kill the beasts, which the workers have named "The Ghost and the Darkness," Patterson falls behind schedule on building the bridge. To get things back on track, Beaumont calls in the professional hunter, Remington (Douglas), to assist Patterson in his efforts to hunt the lions. However, the lions continue to kill and eat workers despite the hunter's presence, causing most of them to flee the camp, forcing Remington and Patterson to face these killers alone. Based on a true story.

First Impressions:

I think I managed to catch this one in theaters, but I may have watched it for the first time on home video. Either way, I remember enjoying the film a great deal on first viewing. I've always enjoyed old-school adventure stories, particularly those set in an era before the advantages of modern technology. This one also fascinated me because it was based on actual events. While the film takes some liberties, apparently, much of what is depicted actually happened. However, the most exhaustive account was written by Patterson himself, who was known to embellish. Regardless, I liked the movie back in the day, and I'm looking forward to putting on my critical goggles to watch it with a fresh perspective.

Story/Direction: 

"Lions don't do this. Lions...never had a lair like this. They're doing it for the pleasure." 

As mentioned above, this film was based on a true story, which I haven't read in its entirety. I have read a few snippets from Patterson's book, and I've seen a couple documentaries on the events, but I'm not entirely sure how close to reality the film was. Honestly, I don't care. A movie's primary focus should be entertainment, not accuracy, so I'm cool if creative liberties get taken. As a whole, I was pretty entertained by the movie's story. It has a very "monster movie" vibe, which is a neat approach given that the monsters in question are average lions. The film plays up the local's mythology surrounding the motivations of the beasts (that they're reincarnated medicine men, possessed or just plain evil), which really helps build up the tension. That's really where a movie like this needs to excel is in the tension. 

I really enjoyed the first act in the film, which sets up the situation and establishes the characters, mainly focusing on Patterson and the camp liaison, Samuel (Kani). We're also introduced to Patterson's assistant, Angus Starling (McCardie) and doctor Hawthorne (Hill). The film does a good job letting the audience know who everyone is and gives them a distinct personality that goes beyond (not too far, mind you) standard archetypes. Likewise, I quite enjoyed the third act of the film. The stakes are sufficiently raised, and there's an exciting conclusion to the film. 

However, I was less than enthralled in the film's middle act, particularly after introducing Remington. This act just never hit home for me. Because it's really just comprised of a few failed attempts to kill the lions, it doesn't really move the story forward much. In most movies like this, the second act is supposed to be where everything goes to shit, which I guess it does in this film, but I just felt that most of the substantive stuff took place in the first act, and the middle part was just filler. 

Finally, I want to quickly touch on the chief complaint leveled at this movie. This complaint, of course, is that it's a "White Saviour" story. I'm not sure that it is, honestly. Yes, a white guy is the hero, and he's surrounded by not white people, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's a White Savior story, does it? To me, a White Savior story has a certain attitude to it. An air of superiority, if you will. I don't know, it's hard to put my finger on it, but I didn't get that vibe from this film. The filmmakers seemed cognizant that it might get labeled this way because it makes a crack about the whole White Savior concept, which I found pretty funny. But, of course, this is all subjective, and your mileage may vary. 

Acting/Characters:

Let's start off by talking about Val Kilmer. This film was shot during a high point in Kilmer's career, and I think he did alright as Patterson. Of course, his Irish accent was a bit Lucky Charms-ish, but Kilmer has a great deal of charm, and it was easy to look past the iffy accent. Kilmer really does a good job conveying Patterson's excitement at going to Africa for the first time and good chemistry with his co-stars, particularly John Kani.

Speaking of Kani, I have to say he was cast perfectly as Samual, the camp liaison and narrator for the story. Kani was born in South Africa, and he gave the film authenticity and a down-to-earth vibe overall. While Patterson is the hero, the audience is viewing the events through Samuel's eyes and that choice to have him do the voice-over narration was inspired. Top marks.

Finally, let's talk about Michael Douglas' turn as Remington. I'm not sure what to think of this character. There was certainly enough there to have a fascinating character, but I felt he was poorly used. He's wedged in around the film's halfway point to act as a mentor to Patterson, but I just didn't feel that relationship. Douglas and Kilmer had good chemistry, but Patterson was established from the beginning as an accomplished hunter, but when Remington shows up, he all of a sudden forgets how to hunt. It's really just a bad implementation of what could have been a cool character.

Visuals/Effects:

From a special effects standpoint, this film does alright. There's some mid-90s rudimentary CGI used in some of the far shots of the lions attacking people, which back in the day looked impressive, but now, it looks a bit iffy. Not so much that it takes away from the story but watching the film on a modern hi-def TV, you can definitely spot the CGI.

The real visual treat is the sets and the African backdrop. The production team did a fantastic job building a believable turn-of-the-century railway camp. It's loud, busy and really works as a setting for the story. Another plus is that the film was shot in Tsavo National Park in Kenya, which is pretty cool because it's not often that a movie based on a true story is shot where the actual events took place. Because of this, the film gets to take advantage of the harsh African landscape.

Score/Soundtrack:

This is one of the highlights of the movie for me. Jerry Goldsmith composed the music for the film, and it's really a score unlike any I've heard in a movie. Goldsmith leans really heavily into African themes and vocals, and it really compliments the action very well. Of course, I've found myself humming bits of it on and off over the past week, so it gets my enthusiastic thumbs up. 

Action:

This isn't really an action movie, but there are a couple of action scenes. Most of these center around the lion attacks. Rather than set these up as bombastic high-octane set pieces, they're slower scenes, designed to build tension, which they do, for the most part. The film's climactic action scene, which takes place at night on the half-finished bridge, was a highlight, as was a showdown with one of the lions in a thicket. 

Final Verdict:

Despite my misgivings about the second act, I still enjoyed this movie. It is a tense adventure thriller, with a monster movie vibe to it and killer music. Check it out if you're in the mood for something a bit different.