Michael Douglas' character and performance...
ruined the film. Ridiculous character, awful crocodile dundee outfit and hair, over the top hit you on the head performance.
shareHow true!
shareDouglas really effed this movie up.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) Discussion > Michael Douglas' character and performan...
maybe somehow you're right. however, i think, no one can deny that after his first appearance in the middle of the movie, he just stole all the fame.
in my opinion, this movie could have been a little bit better, if we had some more of Tom Wilkinson. He's an awesome actor, very charismatic, and perfectly suited for playing the bad guy
Yes, Douglas is miscast and the fact he shows up so late in the film and dies before the end makes his presence seem like kind of an extended cameo. Very distracting.
shareDefinitely. In fact I was thinking it was an ok movie until he showed up. His character was so absurd.
But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'S***!, it's raining!'
The character was entirely made up to be an impressive 'white hunter' and is not in Patterson's original account. He was the worst part of this movie, which was otherwise, pretty true to the accounts and pretty well done. Douglas HAD to have some pull to get this part added or did the filmakers put him in for his 'star' appeal? If that's the case they failed miserable.
shareThe writer put an American character to appeal to American audiences but it was fairly minor, nameless and intendedly mysterious. Then Douglas (who was already producer) took the part and forced rewrites to give him more screen time.
shareIn the trivia section, they purposely wanted another Burt Lancaster type of mysterious and imposing character. So when he gets killed off, the impact and fear are all the more pronounced. But he wasn't intended to be in as long as Douglas extended his scenes. Also they didn't want Douglas but Douglas forced himself and extended his appearance.
shareover-the-top, but I thought he was ok - we needed some comic relief in this tense film, and a buffoon-type character was perfect. He did steal all the scenes he was in, as Kilmer stuck to an under-stated performance.
I know you guys all respect my right to disagree - will any of you die for my right to express it? (didn`t think so (---: )
:-) canuckteach (--:
Yeah, I agree... over the top. He was the experienced fatherly-bravado to Kilmer's... logical-bravado. But comic relief?? No... the main characters excluding Douglas provided plenty of comic relief - including some hilarious moments.
shareI have not seen this movie since it first came out in the theaters, but I very clearly remember thinking, as I was watching the movie: wow Val Kilmer is great and this movie is really interesting - oh but Michael Douglas will be in it soon. Bummer.
Yes, I clearly remember dreading when he would turn up on screen (I was a kid at the time too). Next to Val Kilmer, he cannot act his way out of a paper bag. He absolutely ruined what could have been a truly great film. He took all the realism out of it. It seemed like just as I was being completely sucked in to the world of colonial Africa, Michael Douglas showed up and reminded me I was really just watching a movie. I have not liked him since. In fact I do not get his appeal at all. He is not a good actor at all, is not handsome, and he has a whiny, nasally voice.
agreed
share