re: The Ghost and the Darkness-like or dislike?

The lions are this spawn from hell and evil force that seem to be depicted as deliberately strategizing against Val and co. How the main African dude in particular talked about them. I just found it more difficult to buy into as an adult.

quote:

---

The lions are this spawn from hell and evil force

---

It is perfectly believable for people in the late 19th century to have believed that these man-eating lions had some kind of spiritual, evil force behind them, especially tribes-people.

quote:

---

that seem to be depicted as deliberately strategizing against Val and co.

---

The lions did supposedly eat a 100 or more people IRL, and its not uncommon for large cats to hunt in a complex, strategic fashion for their prey.

Yeah, that's what I said. Right. There wasn't a narrative to this movie at all that amounted to making it a high production value monster movie. That African main character was totally depicted as just an ignorant yokel. You really nailed that one. His point of view totally was not meant to contribute to the narrative of the story.

How the narrative of the movie is depicted buys into the depiction of the lions as part of some intelligent malicious force in the world. The superstition of a literal devil is more than just a belief of some primitive characters. It is the story and how the scare factor is directed. It is a supernatural movie about wildlife. That is fine and all. I just found the concept more compelling as a child than I do as an adult. Some seem to take issue with that.

Keep the hot takes coming bro

quote:

---

Still OK I guess, but the anthropomorphising of the lions and how it was done came across as a little cheesy to me.

---

Obviously the movie took some dramatic liberties, but the lions (and the movie) were based on actual events.

The Tsavo Man-eaters were a pair of lions that feasted on humans who were building a railroad:

Wiki

quote:

---

google "roger ebert's worst reviews." the guy was incredibly overrated.

---

He wasn't an athlete.

He's not rated or unrated...he just had a regional review column for years and a TV show that started off like a Public Access Channel show and became insanely popular.

Did he become some sort of authority? Yes. If you wanted him to be. And him and Siskel were on every movie poster if they liked a movie for promotion. "Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up" - is like every movie poster in the 80's that they liked.

Ebert wasn't Pauline Kael - didn't pretend to be. But wrote better than Siskel and Ebert in his later life had a fantastic blog which encouraged readers to write their own things...largest comments section I've ever seen on the internet...ever.

Ebert was anti-Armond White +
Ebert also wrote this review - Most accurate and Hollywood conceit slamming review of all-time

I looked up your google suggestion. What a nit-picky blog.

The Master starts off the list - I love Paul Thomas Anderson - but that movie is mess. Why is this a big deal? 2.5 stars by Ebert? And it says: "should be 4 stars."

Who the frick is giving that movie 4 stars?

Boogie Nights is 4 stars, There will be Blood might be 4 stars and some people think Magnolia is 4 stars.

The Master was a colossal disappointment. It frankly sort of stunk. And Ebert gave Boogie Nights 4 stars and called it a "sprawling masterpiece" - There Will Be Blood 3.5 stars and Magnolia - 4 stars.

And the big deal about Ebert and his reviews always seems to center on Blade Runner - where he saw it in the theaters with the voice-overs. He gave it a bad review and since then everyone has gone apeshite.

He reconciled his review and redid it years later...including it in his Great Movies book.

I think he really missed the boat with Fast Times at Ridgemont High - but he wasn't a teenager in 1980 watching that film...and believe it or not...in 1980 films were geared toward adults and supposed to be more serious. So it's an era and time and place thing to pan that and Caddyshack - which must have seemed just too adolescent at the time. But adolescence caught on years later and now its mainstream movie-making.

Sweet melt. Your point is inane.