Zulu Reviews

  • Dec 30, 2020

    This legendary piece of film-making is as good as it gets on every level. The actors performances are faultless, the scenery breath-taking and the story is all the more incredible because it really happened. Allow the odd historical inaccuracies and just imagine how you would have reacted given the circumstances these soldiers found themselves in. A film that defies a remake on the premise that you cannot improve on perfection. Nuff said!

    This legendary piece of film-making is as good as it gets on every level. The actors performances are faultless, the scenery breath-taking and the story is all the more incredible because it really happened. Allow the odd historical inaccuracies and just imagine how you would have reacted given the circumstances these soldiers found themselves in. A film that defies a remake on the premise that you cannot improve on perfection. Nuff said!

  • Nov 22, 2020

    A very cinematic interpretation of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, Zulu is positively brimming with wide landscape shots, carefully choreographed battle scenes, and characters that are given enough distinctiveness to craft a winning narrative (the independently-minded rogue vs. the authoritative sergeant, for instance), even if some artistic license was apparently taken on this account. Still, the film is limited by the technology of its day, and much of the hand-to-hand combat is rather poorly executed. The playful antagonism between Caine and Baker's characters is great, and the film notably stands out for building up minor subplots such as this (along with Reverend Witt's appeal to religious morality) before dashing them all in the face of overwhelming and prolonged combat. The film does take far greater care to place due respect to the capability of the Zulu warriors than might be expected for a film of the period, though it does sidestep the historical context that places the Zulu people as simply reacting to hostile combatants provoking them in their own homeland, and thinking about the engagement as a conflict between a contingency with state of the art weaponry vs a force whose kit consisted predominantly of a spear, shield, and loincloth does knock the argument of numerical superiority down a peg or two, doesn't it? (3.5/5)

    A very cinematic interpretation of the Battle of Rorke's Drift, Zulu is positively brimming with wide landscape shots, carefully choreographed battle scenes, and characters that are given enough distinctiveness to craft a winning narrative (the independently-minded rogue vs. the authoritative sergeant, for instance), even if some artistic license was apparently taken on this account. Still, the film is limited by the technology of its day, and much of the hand-to-hand combat is rather poorly executed. The playful antagonism between Caine and Baker's characters is great, and the film notably stands out for building up minor subplots such as this (along with Reverend Witt's appeal to religious morality) before dashing them all in the face of overwhelming and prolonged combat. The film does take far greater care to place due respect to the capability of the Zulu warriors than might be expected for a film of the period, though it does sidestep the historical context that places the Zulu people as simply reacting to hostile combatants provoking them in their own homeland, and thinking about the engagement as a conflict between a contingency with state of the art weaponry vs a force whose kit consisted predominantly of a spear, shield, and loincloth does knock the argument of numerical superiority down a peg or two, doesn't it? (3.5/5)

  • Sep 19, 2020

    Just great classic movie and lots of entertainment

    Just great classic movie and lots of entertainment

  • Sep 17, 2020

    This is my favorite movie of all time. And "Introducing Michael Caine"! Fantastic recreation of an historical event. Natal Province is beautifully filmed. Anti-colonial and even anti-war, dare I say. But fantastic action and character development. Men behaving well under unbearable strain, for a change...

    This is my favorite movie of all time. And "Introducing Michael Caine"! Fantastic recreation of an historical event. Natal Province is beautifully filmed. Anti-colonial and even anti-war, dare I say. But fantastic action and character development. Men behaving well under unbearable strain, for a change...

  • Sep 09, 2020

    I'd recommend that you watch this film. It's great

    I'd recommend that you watch this film. It's great

  • Aug 26, 2020

    One of the best films ever made.

    One of the best films ever made.

  • Aug 04, 2020

    Despite the RT criticisms, the movie was, by Hollywood's fungible historical standards, a fairly accurate depiction of the battle. The combat scenes inside the hospital are worth the price of admission alone.

    Despite the RT criticisms, the movie was, by Hollywood's fungible historical standards, a fairly accurate depiction of the battle. The combat scenes inside the hospital are worth the price of admission alone.

  • Aug 01, 2020

    As a student of the Zulu wars,I can certify that this movie is remarkably realistic and accurate in its portrayal of the Rorke's Drift action.Although some of the characters are "prettier" than the persons they are representing, I think this is allowable, but the action follows very closely the actual events.An excellent movie and highly recommended. For an interesting lead-up, "Zulu Dawn" should be watched.

    As a student of the Zulu wars,I can certify that this movie is remarkably realistic and accurate in its portrayal of the Rorke's Drift action.Although some of the characters are "prettier" than the persons they are representing, I think this is allowable, but the action follows very closely the actual events.An excellent movie and highly recommended. For an interesting lead-up, "Zulu Dawn" should be watched.

  • Jan 21, 2020

    Based on the true story of the battle of Rourke's drift. This is how 150 British soldiers held out against countless brave Zulu Warriors in Zulu Land. Classic cinema. Star performances. This film gets the audience to respect both sides. 1879 south Africa. An un easy truce between the Zulu empire and the British Empires existed with relative peace for some time. Border clashes happened due to the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley. The Zulus had to fight to preserve their own way of life. Which was a brutal warrior culture, similar to the ancient Spartans of Greece. The film respects the Zulu and does them justice. And when anyone in the film dismiss them as a "bunch of savages" there is always someone to correct them. Bare in mind when this film was released. And the context, it would have been easy to be basised against the Zulus. But that's not the case. The British fought for their lives and the Zulus, to defend their way of life. The two British officers are great characters. They have two different personalities. Conflicting with each other. One, a pompous man of privilege. The other is a more down to earth officer who may have risen from the ranks. But its Bromhead, the pompous one, played by Sir Michael Caine, who grows the most. Watching the Zulus play psychological warfare by chanting, singing, and smashing their shields together. Its very cool. Showing the Zulus tactics like the "horns of the buffalo".. a tactic development by Shaka Zulu at the very start of the Zulu Kingdom. This tactic secured them an Empire. The British also use their own tactics which also secured them an Empire. The greatest empire the world has ever seen. The greatest scene in the film is when the Zulus and the Welsh soldiers start singing. Its amazing. Singing an old Welsh song called "Men of harlech" After the battle is over there are no cheers from the British soldiers. They are not happy. They are just thankful to be alive. Not all the film is accurate. Some things in the film simply didn't happen. The sing off didn't happen. At the end the Zulus saluting the British out of respect. That didn't really happen either. The zulus didn't retreat out of respect. They retreated because they where not suppose to be there. The Zulus didn't want to give the British a reason to invade. It's only a couple small historicall inaccuracies. And none of them are insulting to either side. The Zulu king approved of the film and even attended the premiere. All in all? It's a great film.

    Based on the true story of the battle of Rourke's drift. This is how 150 British soldiers held out against countless brave Zulu Warriors in Zulu Land. Classic cinema. Star performances. This film gets the audience to respect both sides. 1879 south Africa. An un easy truce between the Zulu empire and the British Empires existed with relative peace for some time. Border clashes happened due to the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley. The Zulus had to fight to preserve their own way of life. Which was a brutal warrior culture, similar to the ancient Spartans of Greece. The film respects the Zulu and does them justice. And when anyone in the film dismiss them as a "bunch of savages" there is always someone to correct them. Bare in mind when this film was released. And the context, it would have been easy to be basised against the Zulus. But that's not the case. The British fought for their lives and the Zulus, to defend their way of life. The two British officers are great characters. They have two different personalities. Conflicting with each other. One, a pompous man of privilege. The other is a more down to earth officer who may have risen from the ranks. But its Bromhead, the pompous one, played by Sir Michael Caine, who grows the most. Watching the Zulus play psychological warfare by chanting, singing, and smashing their shields together. Its very cool. Showing the Zulus tactics like the "horns of the buffalo".. a tactic development by Shaka Zulu at the very start of the Zulu Kingdom. This tactic secured them an Empire. The British also use their own tactics which also secured them an Empire. The greatest empire the world has ever seen. The greatest scene in the film is when the Zulus and the Welsh soldiers start singing. Its amazing. Singing an old Welsh song called "Men of harlech" After the battle is over there are no cheers from the British soldiers. They are not happy. They are just thankful to be alive. Not all the film is accurate. Some things in the film simply didn't happen. The sing off didn't happen. At the end the Zulus saluting the British out of respect. That didn't really happen either. The zulus didn't retreat out of respect. They retreated because they where not suppose to be there. The Zulus didn't want to give the British a reason to invade. It's only a couple small historicall inaccuracies. And none of them are insulting to either side. The Zulu king approved of the film and even attended the premiere. All in all? It's a great film.

  • Jan 13, 2020

    A stirring, tension-filled action movie showing the tenacious courage of the British defenders against the accomplished and courageous Zulu warriors shows a refreshing balance in terms of respect for each side in what was a fairly unimportant engagement, were it not for having occurred a day after Isandlwana, one of the British Army's worst defeats of the colonial era. So it's all about pride; for the Zulu impi involved, the fact that it had been held in reserve at Isandlwana and hadn't 'washed its spears' and for the British, a chance to regain some pride in their fighting prowess after the disaster. For students of history, the movie is awash with errors; the 24th of Foot were not a Welsh regiment at the time; Private Henry Hook had an impeccable record and would go on to further good service; Reverend Witt wasn't there during the siege and Colour-Sergeant Bourne, so magnificently played by Nigel Green in the movie was, in truth, only 22 years old and the youngest Colour-Sergeant in the British Army at the time. But these facts aren't criticisms of the movie's accuracy, merely grist to the mill of historical purists.

    A stirring, tension-filled action movie showing the tenacious courage of the British defenders against the accomplished and courageous Zulu warriors shows a refreshing balance in terms of respect for each side in what was a fairly unimportant engagement, were it not for having occurred a day after Isandlwana, one of the British Army's worst defeats of the colonial era. So it's all about pride; for the Zulu impi involved, the fact that it had been held in reserve at Isandlwana and hadn't 'washed its spears' and for the British, a chance to regain some pride in their fighting prowess after the disaster. For students of history, the movie is awash with errors; the 24th of Foot were not a Welsh regiment at the time; Private Henry Hook had an impeccable record and would go on to further good service; Reverend Witt wasn't there during the siege and Colour-Sergeant Bourne, so magnificently played by Nigel Green in the movie was, in truth, only 22 years old and the youngest Colour-Sergeant in the British Army at the time. But these facts aren't criticisms of the movie's accuracy, merely grist to the mill of historical purists.