SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 229 - The Ghost and the Darkness

[europe1]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info!

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.
​

​

Our Director
Stephen Hopkins

​

Stephen Hopkins was born in 1958 in Jamaica. He is a producer and director, known for Lost in Space (1998), Nightmare on Elm Street 5 (1989) and Predetor 2 (1990).

Our Stars​

Douglas Jr.​

Mufasa

Film Overview



Premise: A bridge engineer and an experienced old hunter begin a hunt for two lions after they start attacking local construction workers.

Budget: $55 Million

Box Office: $75 Million

Trivia
(courtesy of IMDB)

* Director Stephen Hopkins said about filming: "We had snake bites, scorpion bites, tick bite fever, people getting hit by lightning, floods, torrential rains and lightning storms, hippos chasing people through the water, cars getting swept into the water and several deaths of crew members including two drownings... Val came to the set under the worst conditions imaginable he was completely exhausted from doing "The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)" he was dealing with the unfavorable publicity from that set, he was going through a divorce he barely had time to get his teeth into this role before we started filming, and he is in nearly every scene in this movie but I worked him 6 or 7 days a week for 4 months under really adverse conditions and he really came through, he had a passion for this film."

* There is only one scene involving an animatronic lion. All the other shots were used using two real life lions named Bongo and Caeser. The same lions also appeared in the film "George of the Jungel (1997)."
* Despite receiving a mix critical response the film won an Academy Award for Sound Editing for supervising sound editor Bruce Stambler and gained a cult following.

* When the first worker is dragged from his bed by one of the lions, others can be heard shouting "Simba! Simba!" While Disney fans will naturally think of Matthew Broderick's character in The Lion King, "simba" is the Swahili word for "lion".

* The film was shot mainly on location at Songimvelo Game Reserve in South Africa, rather than Kenya, due to tax laws.

William Goldman first heard about the story when travelling in Africa in 1984, and thought it would make a good script. In 1989 he pitched the story to Paramount as a cross between "Lawrence of Arabia (1962)" and "Jaws(1975)," and they commissioned him to write a screenplay which he delivered in 1990.

Michael Douglas' character Remington is fictionalized. Val Kilmer's character John Patterson killed both lions.
​

Members: @europe1 @MusterX @Scott Parker 27 @JayPettryMMA @Jackie Daytona @Yotsuya @HARRISON_3 @Bubzeh @the ambush @SalvadorAllende @HenryFlower @Zer

 

[BisexualMMA]

Pretty good movie. Michael Douglas' character was kind of like an ill-fated elseworlds of his Romancing the Stone role.

 

[Badger67]

Loved the movie. The real story is neat also.

 

[the ambush]

This week's movie was The Ghost and the Darkness. I feel TG&TD was a enjoyable picture yet it just falls short of what it could have been an epic picture. A person may wonder how TG&TD would have turned out under the guise of a different film director. I prefer the second half of TG&TD over the first half. Pro's: 1996 CGI, special fx, scenery, setting. Con's: Too slow to progress, pacing.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Pretty good movie. Michael Douglas' character was kind of like an ill-fated elseworlds of his Romancing the Stone role.

The "T' stands for Trustworthy.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Hadn't seen this one in years.

Thought Val Kilmer did a good job. Dude was in his prime.

This, The Saint, Tombstone, Heat, etc.

Michael Douglas was solid, but nothing standout-ish.

Didn't care for the score at all, and thought it was a bit too family-friendly.
Definitely had that 90s vibe.

Samuel and Angus seemed to be there mostly for comic relief like in the pirates of the Caribbean.

And Samuel proved to be worthless, IMO.

Other than that, it was entertaining.

Wish it would've been more gritty, however.

Sure, there was lots of blood, but I would've liked to have seen a darker tone.

6.5/10

 

[Zer]

I didn't think this was so bad. I knew the film was kind of infamously bad with a very troubled production. But I've liked other notoriously bad 90's flicks like Waterworld and Escape from LA, I love Kilmer and Douglas and I'm also a fan of new frontier, hostile terrain type movies like Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo so I voted for it

It opened pretty strongly and grabbed my attention pretty quickly. Kilmer as Patterson was a likeable protagonist. I have a terrible ear for accents so to me his Irish sounded perfect. I liked Tom Wilkinson here too and his asshole heel character gives the audience an early push into Patterson's corner. I thought in general the cast did fine with Douglas being the dodgiest. I love Douglas but I wasn't buying it here. I wouldn't call it a bad performance, he's trying, just I like my Michael Douglas to be very sleazy with a few exceptions like Falling Down

The main issue is in pacing I think. At times it feels stuffy and slow, other times rushed. After a good start it definitely dragged in places. One big issue is I don't think the lions make for interesting villains and there isn't an awful lot you can do with them in terms of set pieces. The fact they're terrorizing a big camp full of hapless cannon fodder also takes away some of their menace as their kills feel fairly inconsequential and routine and also gives you the impression that between everyone they should be better prepared. Something like The Edge works better putting its protagonists in a more isolated, precarious situation with a lot of human friction - there's none of that here.

The lions angle just kind of drags the film down and makes it pretty basic. There is a strong sense of environment and it's an interesting time period involving colonialism so I personally would've liked Tom Wilkinson as the villain and Kilmer just trying to get shit done under difficult circumstances, like Fitzcarraldo or the Bridge on the River Kwai. Michael Douglas would still be there just as some dude with some crazy relationship drama going on

 

[MusterX]

Pretty good movie. Michael Douglas' character was kind of like an ill-fated elseworlds of his Romancing the Stone role.

You firebombed my mind with that post. I'm not even 100% what you are saying but I think I like it.

 

[MusterX]

Wish it would've been more gritty, however.

Sure, there was lots of blood, but I would've liked to have seen a darker tone.

Just imagine being there. Its 1898, there is no modern conveniences, people are still riding horseback and the steam engine is still the baddest technology known to man. You are working hard labor under the African sun and then at night sleeping maybe outside on the ground, if you were lucky in a tent. Two 300+ pound cats are prowling and dragging full grown men away into the darkness. Imagine that, a cat large enough to pick you up off the ground and run away with you. It seems like something out of a Tolkien book.

The film could have been a lot darker and grittier. They think the Tsavo man-eaters killed as many as 138 people. The film title is also pretty cool if you think about it.

Someone who didn't know would see the title and think, ok, that sounds bad, a ghost in the darkness, something bad in the darkness, without realizing that the two lions are named "The Ghost" and "The Darkness."

 

[HARRISON_3]

Just imagine being there. Its 1898, there is no modern conveniences, people are still riding horseback and the steam engine is still the baddest technology known to man. You are working hard labor under the African sun and then at night sleeping maybe outside on the ground, if you were lucky in a tent. Two 300+ pound cats are prowling and dragging full grown men away into the darkness. Imagine that, a cat large enough to pick you up off the ground and run away with you. It seems like something out of a Tolkien book.

The film could have been a lot darker and grittier. They think the Tsavo man-eaters killed as many as 138 people. The film title is also pretty cool if you think about it.

Someone who didn't know would see the title and think, ok, that sounds bad, a ghost in the darkness, something bad in the darkness, without realizing that the two lions are named "The Ghost" and "The Darkness."

Indeed.

The story itself is incredible.

I've actually seen the two lions at the Field Museum in Chicago.

The story of how they even made their way there is also incredible.

Went there (to the exhibit) with a buddy about ten years ago.

 

[CHUTE_BOXE78]

Some great info on the film. Douglas is remarkably bad at acting like a bad ass hillbilly hunter. Can't say I enjoyed the film and watching it once was more than enough for me. I've also seen them at the mew-z-um as I live in Chi burbs where the Currans and Felice Herrig live and train. I'm not afraid of Jason Voorhees as I have lived in Crystal Lake for some time and have never encountered him. Felice Jeff, and Pat many times. The "big frog" is a tiny dude. Felice is bigger than him haha.

 

[europe1]

Ah man, it's always weird to go back to a movie that you loved as a kid only to find that it's super ropy.

Here's a weird plotline-thing I thought off. So Kilmer and Douglas trek out into the wilderness to hunt the Lions on two different occasions. The first time, Kilmer's rifle misfires and he gets spooked. The second time, Douglas and Kilmer find the lions bone-bestrewed lair. In the end, neither of these expeditions really accomplish much of anything.

Like... why couldn't both of these events have been combined into one trek? There seem to be no filmic reason as to why they can't. Why have two entirely different scenario where the protagonist says "Let's take the fight to them!" and then only a bunch of minor plot-points happen?

Also: what about these guys?

(I honestly couldn't find a better picture)

These red-painted warrior-dudes just show up with Douglas to hunt the lion and then... go back home? They literally saw the lion once and then decided to haul ass. Their inclusion goes completely unused. I mean... why build them up as these badass native spearmen if you're not going to have them fight the lion even once? They just show up and then are gone! They're like that bear-hat dude in True Grit!

A person may wonder how TG&TD would have turned out under the guise of a different film director

The main issue is in pacing I think. At times it feels stuffy and slow, other times rushed.

I kind of think that the director, Stephen Hopkins, has a characteristic fault to him. He also directed Predator 2, and like Predator 2, I think that Ghost and the Darkness has a lot of awesome and memory-grabbing vignettes to it but the overall story never really gels. It's feels more like a series of moments than a smooth-running narrative. Even if some scenes are great, they never really built any momentum for the rest of the film.

. I love Douglas but I wasn't buying it here. I wouldn't call it a bad performance, he's trying

The guy was a bit too kooky-eyed and self-assured to come across as someone whom we're repeatedly told has suffered some major trauma. They oftentimes talk about his dead family and all but honestly this character seems quite alright with himself.

One big issue is I don't think the lions make for interesting villains and there isn't an awful lot you can do with them in terms of set pieces

Yup.

In the film, they tried to build them up as these devils and demons that might be supernatural savanna-monsters. But... like... we see the Lions early on. These are clearly just Lions! All this "Ghost and the Darkness!" talk fall kind of flat when we know that it's just Big Cat Luncheon out there.

Had the film played it's cards a bit closer to its chest in this regard then maybe the lions would have been more intriguing foes.

The fact they're terrorizing a big camp full of hapless cannon fodder also takes away some of their menace as their kills feel fairly inconsequential and routine and also gives you the impression that between everyone they should be better prepared

It was a big mistake to kill off the cool-looking guy first.

You firebombed my mind with that post. I'm not even 100% what you are saying but I think I like it.

This is why I do not allow nerd-talk in the SMC.

 

[MusterX]

This is why I do not allow nerd-talk in the SMC.

 

[Zer]

It was a big mistake to kill off the cool-looking guy first.

I didn't realize the director also did Predator 2 (Another 90's flick with a bad reputation that I love). I'm not racist or anything but when I first saw that dude I had to check if he was King Willy from P2 but I got it wrong



The main thing I like about Predator 2 is the setting and how LA feels like a hot, sweaty orgy of gang violence. I don't think Ghost and the Darkness does a whole lot with its setting (Considering it's Africa there's not a whole lot of variety in the visuals (Another problem with the story is how it limits the potential visuals by keeping the camera mostly stuck on a camp)) but I can't complain I thought overall it looked pretty good. P2 does have similar problems with plot structure, but I think they're more pronounced here because P2 was way more entertaining to compensate imo

 

[europe1]

I don't think Ghost and the Darkness does a whole lot with its setting (Considering it's Africa there's not a whole lot of variety in the visuals (Another problem with the story is how it limits the potential visuals by keeping the camera mostly stuck on a camp))

This film seems impossible to find good images for.

But some of the images I thought was striking was when Kilmer and Samuel set fire to the savanna -- and when all the laborers leave on the train and you see the red-turban guy standing among them atop it. So while I agree that it feels limited visually, there were certain segments that I thought were quite rousing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Heckuva film. To me one of the most beautifully shot. The presence of the lions was so powerful.

 

[RollSonnenRoll]

This one hold a special place in my heart because it was the first rated R movie that I was allowed to see. I was 9 at the time and since I loved Jaws so much my parents thought it’d be a good creature feature for me to enjoy and I did. Saw some comments about the score. It could have been better in parts but I love this one


And i always thought this captured the wonder and mystique of Africa when Patterson first gets there

 

[toaa]

This was always a comfy movie for me, loved it as a kid. I think it would have been much better served if Douglas's character was more a Colonel Kurtz type of sorts, or even Quint.

 

[CHUTE_BOXE78]

Ah man, it's always weird to go back to a movie that you loved as a kid only to find that it's super ropy.

Here's a weird plotline-thing I thought off. So Kilmer and Douglas trek out into the wilderness to hunt the Lions on two different occasions. The first time, Kilmer's rifle misfires and he gets spooked. The second time, Douglas and Kilmer find the lions bone-bestrewed lair. In the end, neither of these expeditions really accomplish much of anything.

Like... why couldn't both of these events have been combined into one trek? There seem to be no filmic reason as to why they can't. Why have two entirely different scenario where the protagonist says "Let's take the fight to them!" and then only a bunch of minor plot-points happen?

Also: what about these guys?

(I honestly couldn't find a better picture)

These red-painted warrior-dudes just show up with Douglas to hunt the lion and then... go back home? They literally saw the lion once and then decided to haul ass. Their inclusion goes completely unused. I mean... why build them up as these badass native spearmen if you're not going to have them fight the lion even once? They just show up and then are gone! They're like that bear-hat dude in True Grit!

I kind of think that the director, Stephen Hopkins, has a characteristic fault to him. He also directed Predator 2, and like Predator 2, I think that Ghost and the Darkness has a lot of awesome and memory-grabbing vignettes to it but the overall story never really gels. It's feels more like a series of moments than a smooth-running narrative. Even if some scenes are great, they never really built any momentum for the rest of the film.



The guy was a bit too kooky-eyed and self-assured to come across as someone whom we're repeatedly told has suffered some major trauma. They oftentimes talk about his dead family and all but honestly this character seems quite alright with himself.



Yup.

In the film, they tried to build them up as these devils and demons that might be supernatural savanna-monsters. But... like... we see the Lions early on. These are clearly just Lions! All this "Ghost and the Darkness!" talk fall kind of flat when we know that it's just Big Cat Luncheon out there.

Had the film played it's cards a bit closer to its chest in this regard then maybe the lions would have been more intriguing foes.



It was a big mistake to kill off the cool-looking guy first.

This is why I do not allow nerd-talk in the SMC.

Well that was good read thanks for that. Also my apologies for posting here, as I am not a club member. I will only return for the great in depth posts such as this one.