It's a decent African adventure film overall. I found myself enjoying this movie. Africa has always captivated Europeans, and anyone who’s lived there knows it leaves an impression—a kind of spell, really. People rarely forget Africa, and they carry a piece of that magnificent and troubled continent with them. The film succeeds in capturing some of the wild enchantment of Africa, especially its natural beauty found in the most remote areas. This leads to discussing the production values and visuals, which are simply lovely and easily transport you to the time period depicted. I'm no expert, but I didn’t spot any major mistakes, aside from a few props that seemed too modern for 1896. As a film set during the British colonization of Africa’s interior, it naturally tells the story from a European viewpoint; building a railway line is presented as an impressive feat and demonstration of English courage, despite opposition from other nations like Belgium or Portugal who wanted to control the project. The cinematography is beautiful, with warm colors dominating the images, and the landscapes chosen for filming are stunning. The sets, costumes, and effects all meet expectations, adding style and elegance. The cast has both strengths and weaknesses. Val Kilmer doesn’t seem suited to the demands of his role; he'd likely be better in something less action-oriented. Still, I found him believable as an engineer sent to Africa who unexpectedly finds himself in a dangerous situation where survival depends on fighting back. The actor really seems worn down throughout the film, and it’s possible the harsh conditions contributed to that appearance. Tom Wilkinson, Henry Cele, and John Kani are welcome additions that improve the cast's overall quality and prevent the movie from being carried solely by one performer. I wasn’t a fan of Michael Douglas’s presence here, though. His character felt contrived—an obvious attempt to give him a part he didn’t really need. Given it’s an adventure film involving animals attacking people, it would have been expected to include more graphic violence. However, the movie is relatively restrained and avoids truly bloody scenes. The script could use some refinement; while the story is based on an incident in Tsavo, Kenya—where a pair of lions (different from the ones shown in the film, as Tsavo lions don’t have manes) began killing bridge workers constructing a railway, resulting in many deaths—it isn't a completely accurate account. There’s room for creative license when it comes to action sequences, but I object to altering the facts when they introduce a character like the hunter portrayed by Douglas. That person didn’t exist; John Henry Patterson claims he killed the lions on his own.

Source on TMDB