Voting
Quality
Age
 
Voting
Quality
Age

Movie trailer

Сomments

An excellent war film. Supposedly based on a true incident, the movie concerns a small garrison of 90 British soldiers which is assulated by 4,000 Zulu warriors. The main action revolves around the desperate defense of the small outpost. This premise results in some truly fantastic cinematography, which incorporates remarkable African landscapes with thousands of Zulu's charging in full battle gear.

The movie gets neither too political nor too philosophical. The film is orientated more around the individuals' relationships with each other and their separate responses to this desperate situation. Without a strong cast this focus would not have worked. So, congradulations is in order to the solid performances provided by all (including a young Micheal Caine making his debut).

The film is a little slow at first and some of the close combat sequences are less than convincing. Yet, the slow start is soon left behind in a cloud of gun smoke and the brief moments of unconvincing combat are offset by sequences of some stunning yet shocking carnage.

Please note that while the movie focuses more on the British it does not demean the Zulus by portraying them as evil or inhuman. This movie is not racist nor does it allow for the cliche of 'bad' vs. 'good'. It is just about two brave armies who met in battle.
One of the upmost brilliant films of heroism ever made. The whole film is one that will make you feel differently at all times but always in a good way. This is one of the earliest roles ive seen cain play and its one of the best next to "The man who would be king". This film is for anyone who wishes to watch a good war movie...or a good film in general. Brilliant! In all honesty the only movie that has had the power to move me as this one did was this years "Big Fish"...and mabey Edward Scissor Hands...
Comments pending.
This Is hands down the best war movie ever made. There I said it and if you disagree than your wrong ......okay top ten for sure. If they remake this and it takes away from the origonal , I will personally murder the star of the movie.....or ( the most likley choise) slander his good name. Seriously its real, a little one sided, but it show the horrors of war and the power of determination agaist all odds. Based on a true story, its a dam cheap buy and worth every penny.
This is a classic war movie that despite the inevitable inaccuracies is a gripping account of the battle at Rorke's Drift in 1879. It is also the first movie of its sort that I know which depicts boths sides with some attempt at accuracy. I thought the Zulus were great and the psychological warfare they carried on with the chanting and smacking their shields with their spears and sounding like a runaway freight train would've scared the bejesus out of me if I was in their path. There's a bit of a stiff-lipped British Empire attitude and a National Geographic feel to the battle's prelude but even so it builds up nicely to the short but fierce confrontation of 4000 Zulus vs. the 100 odd British soldiers and various indigents at Rorke's, bravely led by the characters played by Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in his 1st major role.

There's a newer DVD release than this one which can only improve the experience as the picture looked a lot like a VHS transfer made in the bilge of a Chinese Junk. An occasional clean film moment is interspersed in the mostly grainy and blurry video, and the audio is strictly mono. Even a 5/10 DVD does not dissuade my high opinion of this old classic.

ZULU
(CY ENDFIELD, 1964)
NOT RATED
2 HOURS 18 MINUTES


Huge throngs of nearly naked African guys with spears charge British guys with guns and get killed. Repeat three or four times. The end.

Congratulations, you've seen Zulu.

Yeah, I know that's oversimplifying it. But seriously, folks, this ain't Shakespeare. It's just an old-school war film, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies but with plenty of blood-stirring, completely politically incorrect Imperialist fun.

It's mostly crap, but it kept me entertained enough.
Solid action war film, boasting an exceptional cast. Very well produced on a grand scale. Well written, impressive war scenes. Michael Caine's movie debut. Very well photographed
Just thought I'd through some ratings out there, in keeping with my rambling label.

Zulu
Desperation, panic, resolve, fear, comradeship, struggle of civilizations, colonialism, heroics, it has it all.

Zulu Dawn
Great to watch just before Zulu to get a real feel for the period and the true situation of the soldiers in the other.

13th Warrior
An attempt to plausibly retell the story of Grendel/Beowulf. The book is better, but the movie is about as good as can be expected. The movie makes the antagonists more monstrous and fascinating but I have always loved this movie as the perfect setting for heroes.

And besides, how many movies in the last 7 years have positively portrayed an arab hero?
This will not be my sought-after "movie to own starting with 'z.'"

It's not bad. It's pretty decent, really. It's got Tremendously Young Michael Caine, for starters. (Well, 31.) It's got the British stubbornness in the face of overwhelming odds, which is what really won them that empire. It's got truly stirring music from both sides of the conflict.

What it does not, however, have is much of my interest. I mean, it's better than most of what they play on AMC these days (currently Exorcist III, ye gods), but how hard is that, really?

I guess part of it is that I'm not much for war movies. Oh, I know. Could have fooled you guys, right? But if you'll really look, most of the movies I watch aren't actually about the war, really. Certainly very few of them have extended battle sequences taking up what felt like easily half the film. It doesn't excite me. I'm not as concerned.

The real British soldiers only lost some 17 men--one to friendly fire! It was dashed brave of them--dashed brave. 11 of them received the Victoria Cross--that's out of roughly 1000 men who'd won it at all to date in 1964, when the film was made. Impressive. But you know, there's only so much watching men in uncomfortable-looking red tunics shoot men in practically nothing who only have spears and shields.

I will say, though, that I admire the spirit of the filmmakers. This was filmed on location in South Africa, and laws required certain unevenness toward the hundreds of actually-Zulu extras. However, all of the animals used in production were given to the tribes, which was considered more than fair. Indeed, pretty much everything that could be done to even things out was.

And, of course, let us not forget that this was, in fact, a battle between two oppressors over the same patch of land. The Zulu lived closer, but it wasn't their land, either. This doesn't mean that the British had any more right to be there, but at least the film isn't about the Noble British driving the Heathen Zulu off their ancestral lands, you know?
Report a problem