Set in late 19th century Africa, "The Ghost and the Darkness" seeks to document the terror and chaos that ensue when forces seemingly within man's control assert themselves. Based on actual events, the film does feature moments of true fear and suspense. However, these instances are overshadowed by the murky screenplay and the specifics of the film, which ultimately lead to its demise.
The story begins when British engineer John Patterson (Val Kilmer) travels to Africa to oversee the construction of a bridge that will connect two parts of an East African railway system. The railroads, which are being built to secure ivory trade and to "save the Africans," will span the entire continent and increase the already immense power of the Empire.
Despite the tensions between African and Indian workers and their employers, everything proceeds as planned upon Patterson's arrival in the Tsazo River region. That is, until a pair of hungry lions begins wreaking havoc by attacking and devouring workers. Rapidly, the predators' appetite for human flesh increases, and the death toll escalates. Stricken by fear, the workers refuse to complete the bridge until the lions are killed.
Enter famed wild game hunter Remington (Michael Douglas), who is brought in by the British government to take care of the situation. However, when the two lions present a far greater challenge than the hunter expects, he enlists the help of Patterson to defeat the menaces. The rest of the film deals with the resolution of the central conflict.
The primary reason why "The Ghost and the Darkness" does not engross the viewer is due to probable lack of concern for the main characters. The British Empire is in the midst of colonizing the majority of Africa. The government is exploiting African labor to reap the benefits of the ivory trade, and the bridge serves as the ultimate symbol of the Europeans' preposterous imperialism.
Consequently, the bridge takes precedence over human life. The lions are causing the greatest damage by delaying the completion of the connector, not by killing faceless workers. And, Remington is hired to prevent further postponement instead of preventing further bloodshed.
With the focus on the problems the lions are causing in construction, why should we care if these animals are killed? What would we want to see the bridge completed for? Moreover, although Patterson is presented as a fair, somewhat idealistic individual, why would we want to see him, as the representative of oppression, succeed?
Interestingly enough, the film is at its most intriguing during the rare instances when it addresses the aforementioned issues. That is, early on, a key issue is the relationship between the colonial workers and the English employers. However, this conflict quickly dissolves (with a feeble resolution) as the lions move to the forefront.
Once this happens the film loses its steam. Although the lion attacks are a bit frightening in their unpredictability, their timing is offset by poor camerawork. In addition, the various hunts for the animals fail to stimulate.
Yet, to its credit, the film uses the setting to its advantage. Shot on location in South Africa, cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond beautifully captures the essence of the savannah. The lush photography augments the magnificence of the landscape, and its enormity diminishes the significance of humans in comparison. This sets the table well for the whole theme of man's lack of control.
But in the end, I have to admit that I kind of wanted the lions to be victorious, because I love underdogs. And, how can you not root for something that humbles manipulative imperialists? After all, I never cared for the British Empire, and consequently, I don't care for this movie.
Michael Douglas is a deranged maniac.