**Overall, a good African adventure film.**
Overall, I liked this film. Africa has always held a fascination for Europeans, and anyone who has lived there will certainly recognize that it leaves a mark, a kind of spell or enchantment. Anyone who is there for a while never forgets Africa, and always brings with them a little bit of this magnificent and martyred continent. The film manages to giv... Read more
**Overall, a good African adventure film.**
Overall, I liked this film. Africa has always held a fascination for Europeans, and anyone who has lived there will certainly recognize that it leaves a mark, a kind of spell or enchantment. Anyone who is there for a while never forgets Africa, and always brings with them a little bit of this magnificent and martyred continent. The film manages to give a flavor of the wild enchantment of Africa, especially the natural beauty that hides in its most untouched regions.
And that leads us to talk about the production and visuals of this film, which are simply beautiful and transport us very easily to the time portrayed. I'm not an expert, but I didn't notice any glaring errors, apart from some props that seemed too modern for the year 1896. Being a film that takes place during the British colonization of the African interior, it is naturally told from the European perspective, with the construction of a railway line being described as an authentic feat of engineering and courage of the English colonizers, determined to unite the continent from Cairo to the Cape despite the ambitions and demands of other governments, such as Belgium or even Portugal, who opposed the project. The cinematography is beautiful, the images use warm colors and the landscapes chosen as the location for filming couldn't be more beautiful. The sets, costumes and effects used in the film meet all the requirements and give us an additional touch of style and elegance.
As for the cast, we have some positive points and some downright negative points to take into account. On the one hand, Val Kilmer doesn't seem to have the necessary strength for the character he was given. He would have been much more effective in a role that didn't require so much action and physical effort. Still, he seems sufficiently credible to me as an engineer who goes to Africa for work and finds himself in a situation for which he was not at all prepared and in which he will have to fight to stay alive. The actor, it must be said, really seems to be in a pitiful state all the time, and I suspect that the weather was one of the reasons that led to so much obvious wear and tear. Tom Wilkinson, Henry Cele and John Kani are worthy additions who raise the overall quality of the cast and prevent this from being a one-man film. Unfortunately, I hated seeing Michael Douglas here. In addition to his character being an authentic egoic self-praise, it was invented just to satisfy this actor's desire to appear where he had no space or place.
Being an adventure film where we deal with animals that eat people, it would be a little predictable to have high doses of gore and broken bodies. However, the film is quite calm and does not show us scenes that are really bloody. The script is something that we need to develop a little. The story of this film is solidly based on an incident that took place in Tsavo, Kenya, in which a pair of local lions (not at all like the ones used in the film, as the Tsavo lion does not have a mane) began massacring the bridge workers who were carrying them. British were building, causing dozens of deaths. However, it is not a faithful portrayal of events. Of course, there is a certain amount of space to create, and I would place all the wild and crazy action scenes within this level of creativity inherent to any film. What I cannot accept is the subversion of the facts that happens when the character of the beast hunter played by Douglas is introduced. This character did not exist, the two lions were killed without help by John Henry Patterson, or at least he claimed so.Show less
