Zulu (1964) User Reviews

A time to stand

[tomsview · 9/10 · 18 July 2017]

When "Zulu" opened in Sydney in 1964 it had one of those big premieres that military epics received back then: searchlights, red carpet, a band and guests wearing medals.

Shortly after, I took my brother to see it. "Zulu" ticked all the boxes for us.

From Richard Burton's opening narration to his listing of the names of the Victoria Cross winners at the end, we were rapt.

As well as the battle, those bare-breasted Zulu girls did not go unappreciated by a couple of young lads. You didn't see a lot of that sort of thing on the screen in those days. The filmmakers obviously got away with it under the old National Geographic Magazine rule of it's OK if it's the natural attire of the culture, it didn't stop them being hot though.

The film still stands up even if the censorship of the day kept it relatively bloodless. Demonstrations show what a round from a Martini Henry rifle can do to a watermelon, no doubt it would have had the same spectacular effect on a human head. An assegai in the belly would not be as clinical as depicted in the movie either.

But the best bits of the film were often the tense scenes waiting for things to happen and the one where the men drown out the Zulu chant with "Men of Harlech". I haven't a drop of Welsh blood, but that scene always puts a lump in my throat.

The film is classy. Breathtaking photography, terrific performances from top to bottom and an awesome score by John Barry; music to perform heroics by.

The film was a hit in Australia, but something unexpected happened not long after. In 1966, D Company, 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment found itself surrounded by up to 2000 Viet Cong in a rubber plantation at Long Tan in South Vietnam. There were 108 of them, about the same number as the 24th Regiment at Rorke's Drift. They held off attack after attack. Instead of mealie bags they brought down artillery fire, but the fighting was at close quarters as they held their perimeter.

By the time help arrived, 18 of them were dead (17 at Rorke's Drift) while the enemy lay dead in the hundreds. Controversially, there were no Victoria Crosses although more than one was earned. Years later, the company commander likened the battle to Rorke's Drift. But I wonder if while the battle was on, did it flash through the minds of the blokes who had seen the movie that what they saw depicted on the screen they were now experiencing for real?

Would anyone make a film like "Zulu" today? Possibly it would be just too un-PC. Most battles on the screen these days are fought vicariously through intergalactic stormtroopers or by the denizens of "Game of Thrones".

However, historical rights and wrongs aside, I still think "Zulu" rocks; it's simply an exceptional piece of filmmaking.

Cymru Am Byth in South Africa

[juho69 · 9/10 · 30 December 2004]

If you watch only the first two minutes of 'Zulu', it will be worth your while. The superbly dramatic theme music, followed immediately by Richard Burton's striking Welsh narration, are utterly entrancing. The rest of the film is not bad, either!

In January 1879, during the Boer War, at Isandhlwana in South Africa, over one thousand British troops are annihilated by King Cetshwayo's Zulu army. Standing between the four thousand Zulus and victory is the mission station at Rorke's Drift and about one hundred and forty British soldiers, some of whom are wounded. Commanding the military operation is the young Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker, also co-producer of the film) with Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead (Michael Caine, in his first major film role). Against the unimaginable odds, the British troops - the B Company of the 24th Regiment of Foot, South Wales Borderers - manage, with exceptional courage and stoicism, to hold off the Zulu attacks until morning. The valour of the men defending Rourke's Drift resulted in the awarding of eleven Victoria Crosses. The roll of honour is recited by Richard Burton at the film's end.

Baker and Caine are very convincing in the two lead roles as Chard and Bromhead, the rival lieutenants from different social classes who come to respect and even like each other. Their first meeting emphasises the psychological as well as the physical distance between them. Chard, the Engineer Officer, in his shirt-sleeves, is up to his waist in water; Bromhead, the upper-class blue-blood, in his helmet and fine cloak, is on horseback, having just returned from hunting. However, as the battle progresses, this rivalry is forgotten as their prime concern is the job in hand. Their exchange when Chard is injured and Bromhead goes to his aid is telling. By the end of the film, as they stand together in the burnt-out ruins of the hospital, they are equals.

The incredibly virile Stanley Baker (one wants to say, "Fwhoar!" every time he appears on screen) co-produced the film because, like most Welshmen, he was extremely patriotic and wanted to publicise the bravery of the Welsh soldiers at Rorke's Drift. Michael Caine auditioned originally for the part of Hook but was offered instead the part of Bromhead as his looks were considered more suited to those of an upper-class officer than a Cockney private.

Good support is given by the other actors in the supporting roles. James Booth as Private Henry Hook is probably the most memorable character, portrayed (historically inaccurately) as the company ne'er-do-well, yet who wakes up to his duty at the moment of crisis and fights almost to the death. Jack Hawkins and Ulla Jacobssen are effective as the well-meaning but naive father-and-daughter missionaries, the Witts. The outstanding bravery and selflessness of the other (mainly) Welsh soldiers is brought out by all the actors in the subordinate roles.

What I think is very admirable about 'Zulu' is its lack of jingoism. Far from it crowing about British supremacy over the natives, it portrays the bravery of the Zulus as equal to or even greater than that of the British. At the end of the battle, there is no great rejoicing; it was just a job which had to be done because they were there. In the ruins of the hospital, when Chard asks Bromhead how he feels, Bromhead replies, "Sick." Their dialogue continues:

Bromhead: There's something else. I feel ashamed. Was that how it was for you? The first time?

Chard: First time? Do you think I could stand this butcher's yard more than once?

Bromhead: I didn't know.

Chard: I told you. I came up here to build a bridge.

No more needs to be said.

Although the character names and events are factual, the film does sometimes sacrifice historical accuracy for dramatic effect. How much real rivalry there was between Chard and Bromhead is unclear - although it is true that Bromhead ceded command to Chard. Private Hook was not the thief and ne'er-do-well as played by James Booth. Colour Sergeant Bourne was a short man and quite unlike Nigel Green in appearance. Most of the Victoria Cross winners were English, not Welsh. And the film itself was shot not at Rorke's Drift but at a location some miles away.

Interestingly, neither Chard nor Bromhead lived to a great age. Both died in their forties, Chard of mouth cancer in 1897 and Bromhead of fever on active service a few years before. Neither ever married. Nevertheless, their names are immortalised in 'Zulu' - as are the deeds of the tremendously brave men, Welsh, English and Zulu, at Rorke's Drift on 22nd/23rd January 1879.

Classic Entertainment

[RobertF87 · 8/10 · 7 July 2012]

In January 1879, about 100 British soldiers are forced to hold the small outpost of Rorke's Drift in South Africa's Natal province against about four thousand attacking Zulu warriors.

Based on a true story, this is one of the greatest war movies ever made. The film quickly sketches the personalities of the main characters, and when the action starts it quickly moves into high gear. It successfully mixes tension and action in a way that few war movies have yet matched.

The performances are great, particularly co-producer Stanley Baker as the hard-as-nails Lieutenant Chard who assumes command on the strength of his seniority, and Michael Caine, in his first major starring role, as the aristocratic Lieutenant Bromhead, who comes into conflict with Chard.

Refreshingly, the film is respectful in it's portrayal of the Zulus as honourable and dignified warriors.

The script features plenty of memorable dialogue and a decent amount of humour. It also features some stirring music from John Barry.

An edge of your seat spectacular.

[Scaramouche2004 · 14 August 2004]

22nd January 1879, Rorke's Drift. Natal Province. On that day an epic battle was fought between 4000 Zulu warriors and approx. 100 British soldiers.

Now I have noticed many of our American cousins have made remarks in their reviews of Zulu, to the effect that the soldiers were nasty-pasty British Empire builders and that they all deserved to choke on their own vomit, however the film does not try to justify the Zulu War or it's origins so I will not either, suffice it to say that you shouldn't be expressing assumptions and opinions on nineteenth century political attitudes with such an obvious twenty-first century viewpoint. They are two very different worlds which cannot be compared.

This film is beautifully shot and scripted, and the the John Barry musical score keeps the battle scenes moving well. It seems to makes the sometimes long periods of heavy fighting pass by quicker. Barry took authentic Zulu songs and chants and added the dramatic score around them to make an original and haunting theme which still ranks as one of his greatest film score offerings.

Stanley Baker is fantastic as Lt. Chard, the Royal Engineer who is able to use his skill in successfully fortifying the little hospital outpost against the onslaught of the foe.

Micheal Caine plays Lt. Bromhead the professional line soldier and upper class officer who after a little whining and grumbling accepts his position of second in command and fights valiantly in the battle. It was this film that propelled Caine to international stardom, so powerful was his performance.

Other noted cast members include James Booth as an excellent but inaccurate Hook, and Nigel Green as Colour-Sergeant Frank Bourne the typical Victorian Sergeant-major complete with side whiskers and moustache.

The Great Jack Hawkins who did not like the character he played or his work on the film, portrayed Otto Witt, the pacifist missionary with a drink problem and again it is another performance worthy of an award. It was upsetting however to hear in his voice, his wonderfully clipped speaking voice, the early effects of the throat cancer which had by this time plagued him for three years and which was eventually to lead to his death.

Also special mention to Richard Burton, who narrated the whole show. He truly had one of the best dramatic voices in the world and speaks his lines beautifully.

It was also good to see the Zulu's portrayed with dignity and honour rather than just mere savages with bones through their noses. They were a brave and strong opponent that day and they are deserving of tribute as much as the British.

The basis of this film is taken from historical fact, although certain characters and events have either been altered, erased or just plain fabricated for dramatic purposes. I hope that should any producers in the future be foolish enough to attempt a remake of this classic epic, they will put historical accuracy first and Hollywood sensationalism second if at all.

Enough has been said by others regarding the blatant slander of Private Henry Hook, so I will not elaborate on it, save that it was a gross slur on the bravest of men. I hope should the film ever be remade his honour will be restored and his gallant deeds on that day be portrayed accurately.

To quash further popular myths none of the film is shot on the exact spot at which the battle took place, (the real Rorke's Drift was in fact about 60 miles from the location shoot.)

The regiment in question did not become the South Wales Borderers until two years after the battle and was at the time a Warwickshire Regiment. They were however based in Brecon which is where the Welsh connection was born and would explain why there was a higher amount of Welsh nationals attached to it.

Despite this the regiment consisted mainly of Englishmen and only about 12 percent were in fact from Wales. With these demographics being how they are I can assure you, "Men of Harlech" would not have been sung at Rorke's Drift, (at least not without the culprit being bayoneted by an Englishman with ear-ache.)

Lt. Chard himself was an Englishman having been born in Plymouth into an established and respected Somerset family. This being the case, I find it funny that although Stanley Baker never refers to Chard as a Welshman, he none the less seems to revel in promoting Welsh pride at ever opportunity. Of the eleven V.C's won in the battle, only three of them were awarded to Welshman so why the big Welsh message Boyo?

Also the final salute made by the Zulu's did not occur. When they re-appeared on the hill they returned with the sole intention of finishing off the gallant soldiers at the outpost, but decided against it when they noticed a sizable relief column approaching Rorke's Drift from the south.

Finally, a few people have made references to Colour-Sergeant Frank Bourne, wondering whether or not he really existed and if so why he was never awarded the V.C. for his conduct on the day. Yes, he really existed and yes, he did fight at Rorke's Drift. He was in fact recommended for a Victoria Cross, but told the powers that be that he would rather have a promotion instead. This he was given along with a D.C.M and an O.B.E. He was the last surviving veteran of Rorke's Drift when he died on V.E. Day 8th May 1945 aged 91 and with a rank of Lt. Col.

For more historic information about The Battle of Rorke's Drift and it's combatants, I recommend you visit www.rorkesdriftvc.com.

How the British Ruled the World

[Bogmeister · 10/10 · 6 August 2005]

A magnificent recreation of one of the most incredible battles in history, Zulu depicts how less than 100 British soldiers held off an army of 4000 Zulu warriors. The battle follows a previous one, less than a day before, in which about 1200 British soldiers lost. This film really gives new meaning to the saying 'keep a stiff upper lip' - or 'never say die.' The British soldiers here, led by Lieutenants played by Baker & Caine, know full well the force coming against them; they know what has already occurred. By rights, they should beat a hasty retreat before the approaching army arrives. The film never delves into the reasons, psychological or other, of why the commanding officer is determined to remain, beyond just the statement that he holds the "queen's commission." It's a question that baffles the missionary (Hawkins, usually the stiff English officer in other films) who begs them all to leave. The film seems to say, when the moment comes, no man really knows what he will do until it is upon him. Here, the soldiers find out very quickly what they're made of.

Cy Endfield, the director, manages to build some heady suspense before even the awesome battle scenes. The soldiers hear a strange sound in the distance, "like a train" notes Caine. Now we no longer need wonder what 8000 feet on soil sound like. And it's not just the suspense; the drama here is very effective. There are numerous sequences where Endfield manages to drive home a point that sticks in your mind for days - maybe years. Who can forget that simple act of turning over a wagon? The photography is superb, capturing the vastness of the area, and should be seen in widescreen glory. I've seen this film many times as a kid and, of course, these were standard TV showings; I didn't know better, it was one of my favorite films of all time, regardless, but it's twice as glorious in proper aspect ratio. I even had the privilege of seeing this on a theater screen once about 20 years ago and I was suitably blown away, even knowing the story beforehand (nowadays, a DVD on a big screen TV is your best bet). The musical score is perfect, as well. I can't imagine the film with anything different.

When the fighting begins, it's really breathless; by that I mean, there is one central action set piece when many of the Zulu warriors break through the ranks and threaten the inner compound, including the officer in command. I always have to hold my breath during this sequence, even though I've seen it 20 times, it's that good. Every time a Brit soldier falls, I think, my God, that's a good portion of the entire defending force! They can never make it! Yet, they do, several times. It's a relentless depiction of war battles, never equaled (as in "The Alamo",1960, another historical depiction of a small group against a much larger force - it's good, but not even close). Somehow, Endfield and whomever helped choreograph the action scenes managed to weld together the perfect combination of huge crowd battles and singular confrontations where it becomes a little personal.

All the actors are first rate. Caine is terrific in his first major role. Baker is very solid - has to be - as the one in command. Booth - I know his character may not be historically accurate - but he's the most colorful, and when he explodes into full-fledged heroism, it's something to see. And Nigel Green as the sergeant - THAT's why the British ruled the world for a time! In fact, all the supporting and minor roles are filled out excellently; this was when script writing had to be extra professional. The much later prequel had no hope of comparing to this masterpiece, but even that film was well done. Yes, I'll say it one more time - this is a masterpiece.

Men of Harlech onto glory.

[hitchcockthelegend · 10/10 · 6 July 2008]

"In the hundred years since the Victoria Cross was created for valour and extreme courage beyond that normally expected of a British soldier in the face of the enemy, only 1,344 have been awarded, 11 of these were won by the defenders of the mission station at Rorke's Drift, Natal, January 22nd to the 23rd 1879"

Just typing out that spoken narration from Richard Burton brings me out into goose pimples, and the hairs on the back of my neck stand to attention, Zulu quite simply is my favourite film of all time, and my love for cinema to this day owes its credit to this 1964 masterpiece.

Zulu is a perfectly staged, perfectly acted account of the British defence of Rorke's Drift, where 139 British soldiers held off 4000 Zulu Warriors at the height of the Anglo-Zulu War. Its strength is not in romanticism or over sentimentality in the name of glossy hard sell, the crux lies with just being a tale of pure courage, a tale of pure stoic heroism, it sticks vigorously to the actual events, and thus the film plays out with genuine honesty that few other War pictures can ever lay claim to.

Where does one start when outlaying the brilliance this picture has to offer? The Natal location is stunning, beautiful lush rolling hills dwarf this tiny outpost, the sky a never ending eye witness to the courage unfolding, Stephen Dade's photography perfectly capturing this colourful extravaganza. The direction from the criminally undervalued Cy Enfield is excellent, along with his star and producer (Stanley Baker in a role of a lifetime) he manages to direct some of the most amazing battle sequences put onto the screen, the discipline of man to man combat perfectly orchestrated by Enfield. The Zulu extras, who once had no idea what they was supposed to do at first, finally grasped the concept of movie making and added weight to the drama. It's now down in legend that Baker showed the chiefs a Gene Autry Western and that got them into the swing of things!

The acting right through the cast is astonishing, Baker, Michael Caine, Jack Hawkins, James Booth, Nigel Green, Ivor Emmanuel and Patrick Magee are just some of the cast that shine bright and bold. John Barry's score is blood pumping to the maximum, swirling strings collide with thumping base drums to give one the feeling of invincibility. Ernest Archer's art decoration, Arthur Newman's costumes and of course the John Prebble screenplay that is Zulu's heart. I could go on and name everyone involved in this picture, such is the admiration I have for the work involved. But really the story sells itself, not a glossy British victory in sight (the British defenders were allowed to withdraw from the engagement gracefully), this is not just another British fable of imperialistic fervour, it's just a tale of bayonets with guts behind them, and ultimately a story of when men really were men, all in the line of duty.

Men of Harlech onto glory...10/10 and then some.

Once were warriors

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 26 January 2017]

Zulu became so famous that the movie soon descended into parody including that Michael Caine impression: 'Oi, stop chucking those spears at me!' It is noticeable that Caine actually played a posh officer.

Zulu is an epic directed by the American Cy Endfield. It is set in 1879 and depicts 4000 Zulu warriors heading for Rorkes Drift in Natal where a small supply post is defended by about 100 British soldiers.

The first half of the film consists of showing the various characters from the British side. A barrack room lawyer shirking from battle (James Booth) a by the book pompous posh officer (Michael Caine) and an engineer (Stanley Baker) determined to be tactical and defend this outpost by setting up barricades and getting ready for battle.

The second half is the relentless battle scenes as waves and waves of Zulus attack. Although it has to be said, the British soldiers although fewer in numbers have guns, the Zulus being in greater numbers mainly have spears and once they have been thrown, nothing much else.

The film might look old fashioned but Stanley Baker was also one of the producers of the film. As a staunch socialist he was determined that this film would not be seen as some kind of jingoistic, colonial boys' own adventure but pay tribute to those mainly Welsh soldiers, eleven of them who were awarded the Victoria Cross. The film stills stands its ground.

Superlative acting, cinematography & direction: what impact!

[acamera · 10/10 · 9 August 1999]

I cannot find words to fully express how perfectly formed this film is, though I will- of course- make a good stab at it!

I've seen Zulu so many times since it was first released that I have lost count. In the days when you could sit in the cinema and watch a film come round for a second (or even a third) time, I always did this with Zulu. I bought the soundtrack when it came out (on vinyl, of course).

From Stanley Baker & Michael Caine on through the cast list the acting is, quite simply, superb. This is an ensemble piece, and the ensemble gives its all! Photographically, it is beautifully conceived and executed. There is a tendency in 'war' movies to find a couple of favourite types of shot, and then endlessly repeat them, rather like a budgerigar that has learnt how to make his bell ring: no danger of that here; a whole lexicon of camera movements & angles is deployed with consummate skill so that you cannot watch this film without being fully engaged with it.

But, to cut to the chase, what is so striking is that here is a movie that could so easily have been yet another 'duffing up the natives' actioner, and instead becomes a vehicle for all sorts of interesting questions. Questions such as 'what is it to be a man?', and 'what is courage?' are posed and turned into interesting questions with complex and surprising answers.

The way that Zulu culture/social psychology is compared with that of the British soldiers is also deft and insightful. The cry of the drunken pastor- "you're all going to die"- echoes through the rest of the film, as we see how the protagonists face death.

Any review of this would be incomplete without mention of the music, which is so well-suited to the action. It forms a restless, swirling, and sometimes majestic backdrop to what is happening on-screen.

The voice-overs which 'bookend' the film also underline that which is, in any case, clear from the narrative: this film is no apologia for imperialism. Neither does it represent battle as other than bloody and painful murder. What is, perhaps, the most remarkable feature of the film is the way in which it damns war while neither grossing out nor alienating its audience. It is, on the contrary, an enthralling and passionate entertainment.

One memorable visual moment occurs toward the end, when the Zulus appear simultaneously on the skyline all round Rorke's Drift. Compare this with the appearance of the tanks on the skyline in 'The Battle of the Bulge'...

P.S., beware (as you always should) TV showings or videos that are 'scanned' rather than in the original letterbox format: cinematography this good does not deserve to be butchered!

Undisputed Classic

[Theodore2 · 10/10 · 23 August 2001]

It`s shameful no-one makes films like ZULU anymore. In these PC dominated times there are those who may view this film as being racist dealing with a heroic battle between white foreign troops against native black Africans during Victorian times. Nothing could be further from the truth. The zulus are rightly presented as being fearless and disciplined warriors ready to willingly die than show cowardice.

The only other criticism a modern day audience can level at the film is the fact that the battle scenes are slightly ungory compared to the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and PLATOON. But so what ? How many other films compete with the excitement and tension of scenes like the soldiers fighting off the hordes of zulus in the hospital building ? Would graphic disembowelment and decapitation improve these scenes ? of course not.

I could go on all day as to what`s brilliant about ZULU , but I wont. But I will say that for me the greatest aspect of the film is John Barry`s score. The fact that he never won an oscar for it just goes to show there`s no justice in the world.

Without doubt the greatest British film of the 1960`s , probably the greatest British picture ever , and possibly the greatest film ever. Let`s hope Hollywood never decides to remake it

Because they're there.

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 4 August 2022]

It is only natural I suppose for an avowed socialist such as Stanley Baker to have formed a professional bond with two of Hollywood's blacklisted liberals. Some of Baker's best work is for Joseph Losey while 'Zulu' is the finest and most commercially successful of his collaborations with Cy Endfield.

Adapted by John Prebble from his own article, it is shot on location amidst the grandeur of the Drakensberg Mountains in glorious Technirama 70mm by Stephen Dade, has one of John Barry's strongest scores, excellent editing by John Jympson, especially in the battle sequences and boasts a strong cast.

Stanley Baker gives his customarily earthy, no-nonsense performance as Chard whilst Michael Caine in his breakthrough role as Bromhead has ironically been obliged to disguise his cockney roots and has never been quite as effete. Caine was originally considered for the part of Private Hook which went to James Booth whose performance ranks as his finest filmic hour. The requirements of film have dictated that Hook be portrayed as a thief and drunkard whereas in reality he was by all accounts a model soldier. Marvellous support from the imposing Nigel Green as Colour-Sergeant Bourne although the original Bourne was a mere 5' 3''. Patrick Magee impresses as Surgeon Reynolds whilst the superlative Jack Hawkins steals his scenes as the missionary Witt(wisely eschewing a Swedish accent)

Since the film was released there has been a seismic historical shift and nations have been forced to come to terms with their colonial past. One observer has noted that this is essentially 'a cavalry Western in which white men kill indigenous people in order to steal their land and are deemed heroic for doing so.' Empire-making has become synonymous with ethnic-cleansing.

Despite is dramatic licence, glaring inaccuracies and ideological flaws this film is a well-constructed, stirring, Kiplingesque tale of derring-do and individual bravery that has deservedly remained a perennial favourite.

.

Great action movie from another time

[2think · 10/10 · 18 January 2004]

While quite a lot of today's action movies depend on extreme special effects, this movie manages to entertain without relying on special effects but is more dependent on great directing and a well-written script. For example, although one group is outnumbered, it is impossible to predict which group will emerge victorious. Neither does the movie get preachy about war, peace, the British Empire or anything else. I have known a range of viewers who have all found the movie supporting of their views (pro-war, anti-war, anti-Empire, pro-Empire) which must mean the movie is simply incredibly well-acted and directed for such diverse views to find something to like.

A Statue of a Film...

[Xstal · 5/10 · 13 February 2023]

If you're nation likes to invade other nations, loot their treasures and replace all their foundations, it should come as no surprise, that the natives will then rise, to put a spear in the works, cause complications.

There are two outstanding elements to this film, the first is the cinematography and the natural landscapes with the indigenous people living among them (even when they're at war), the second is the history it reminds us of when it comes to Empire, and the effect that it has, not just on the indigenous populations, but those tasked with implementing it, all in the name of? The Man Who Would Be King is another great museum piece too, although, once you lift the lid.

A tribute to human courage.

[Roosterbooster · 16 June 2001]

Zulu is the true story of the battle of Rourke's Drift between the British and Zulu nations in 1879. Both nations were aggressive, expansionist peoples. The British had pursued trade throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and suddenly found themselves in possession of an empire encompassing one quarter of the world. The Zulus, under the warrior-king Shaka Zulu, had become a society totally devoted to warfare and, with the possible exception of the Spartans over two thousand years before them, the most fearless soldiers the world had ever seen. It is important not to succumb to political correctness here, the Zulus had ruthlessly oppressed other nations in black Africa and caused mass migrations of people, the effects of which are felt to this day. The British meanwhile, had provoked a confrontation with them and suffered a defeat at Isandlwana where modern weapons has proved insufficient against overwhelming numbers of incredibly brave and disciplined warriors. The day after the battle the small British garrison at Rourke's Drift seemed doomed. Just over 100 men plus sick men in the hospital faced thousands of Zulus eager for their share of the glory which their brothers had won at Isandlwana.

The nature of the British Army at this time was not promising. Before Waterloo in 1815 the Duke of Wellington had described them as "the scum of the earth" - rogues, ne'er-do-wells, criminals, drunkards, ladanum fiends, debtors fresh from prison, even lunatics. In 1879 they were not much different. They were incredibly badly paid, their conditions of service were atrocious, they were despised by the civilians, led by officers who often owed their position to aristocratic privilege and money. Sometimes they were booed in the street and refused access to pubs and music halls such was their lowly status. And yet, and yet... they had faced and defeated some of the most fearsome warriors on Earth. The Pathans, Burmese, Afghans, Sudanese "Fuzzy-Wuzzies" as well as Napoleon's invincible Imperial Guard. If they survived the bloody colonial wars they could expect an early death in the work-house, unappreciated by the people whose incomes they had guarded. If you are interested in the Victorian soldiers see Kipling's poems (especially "Tommy Atkins") or read George Orwell's long essay on Kipling or "The Lion And The Unicorn".

This film salutes human beings in extremis. Though told from the British viewpoint it pays handsome tribute to the magnificent courage and honour of the Zulu warriors as well as the British soldiers wondering "what are we doing here?". The best perfomances in the film, in my opinion, are from James Booth as Private Hook, the cynical drunkard turned reluctant hero and Nigel Green as the awesome Colour-Sergeant Bourne. It portrays courage and stoicism which modern people seem to lack; heroism when all seems lost, faith in the regiment and your mates and old-fashioned manliness.

Possibly the greatest single battle film ever

[waynec50 · 10/10 · 16 February 2006]

This is an incredible film. While there a few inaccuracies and some dramatic licenses, on the whole the movie follows accounts of the battle accurately. It doesn't vilify the Zulu, in fact it treats them with great respect for their bravery and devotion to their homeland. The bare facts are well known, that Rorke's Drift was the jumping off point for the British invasion of Zululand, and was a hospital and supply depot. It was defended by roughly one hundred men against some 4,000 Zulu. Stanley Baker is outstanding as Lt Chard, the senior officer at the fort, who takes command despite being an engineer officer. Michael Caine is, of course fantastic in his first big role as Lt. Bromhead. Nigel Green is superb as Colour Sergeant Bourne, who received a promotion instead of a Victoria Cross and outlived all the other defenders. The cast of mostly Welsh actors really convey the desperation and bravery of the garrison. The biggest fault with the film is the total misrepresentation of Pvt Henery Hook as a malingerer, in fact he was a good soldier and bravely risked his life to empty the hospital. The scenes of the post before the attack show soldiers at their worst in some ways, especially the treatment of Margaretta Witt. The atmosphere and attitude change when the imminent threat of Zulu attack becomes a fact. Unlike the overconfident officers at Isandlhwana, the inexperienced lieutenants build their defenses and set up ammunition supply to counter the assault. They respect their opponents and understand that they may be the last line of defense against a counter-invasion into Natal. The fighting is spectacularly filmed, highlighting the bravery and resolve of the Zulu and the determination of the redcoats to survive and hold the fort. I was embarrassed to read the comments of certain Americans who have had their brains filled with revisionist political correctness and rooted for the British soldiers to "choke on their own vomit" and die because they were imperialist tools. Just to see this as a record of great bravery (on both sides) and an exciting entertainment apparently isn't enough, they have to spout P C drivel.

Best film ever...

[rice-1 · 10/10 · 14 January 2002]

simply my favourite film. A true story well told.

I wanted to clarify some points from recent reviwers which I hope help exlain some questions. Mainly from Geofbob.

The two Lts. Chard and Bromhead - were new to battle. The reason Chard performed so well may be largely due to the fact that he was an engineer who knew about building defences. The mealie bag wall they build in the film was vital in order to slow up the thousands of zulus.

The victory was not a sure thing because they had guns. The zulus had hundreds of guns capture that morning from the other 1700 British troops that had been killed by the zulus armed with spears.

As to where the Hawkins character went to ? In reality he legged it away from his mission before the battle - later submitting a bill for damages to the British government.

No explanation into the reasons for the battle. No bad thing as the true story of men against men is a worthy tail on its own and any explanation would be open to interpretation - read the history yourself!

One last point everyone enjoys the Men of Harlech scene. Whilst this is poetic license - a very similar incident happened in the Afghan war at the same time. A Btirish regiment cut off and fighting to the end, sang God Save The Queen just before the final Afghan attack - they survived - remember these were very different men from today, no political correctness here and possibly a lot more courage. 10/10

Oh, and by the way Colour Sgt Bourne - very much existed in real life. He was awared the DCM and lived until 1945, the last survivor of Rorkes Drift.

Almost a masterpiece

[rooprect · 7/10 · 20 February 2010]

"Introducing Michael Caine" alone is worth the price of admission. The stunning landscape and cinematography is worth another ticket. The powerful musical score is your 3rd ticket. Suspense+tension+drama... oh yeah you'll get your money's worth.

In short, this is a powerful film that will entertain, excite and affect you. But it stops just shy of being an artistic masterpiece for one reason. Although it flirts with some deep philosophies, I didn't get the feeling that it wanted to go in that direction. So despite the stage being set for a profound epic like "Aguirre the Wrath of God", this film may leave your soul unfulfilled.

In particular, there were some intriguing themes introduced right at the beginning but not explored fully. Unlike the cartoonish cowboy & Indian films that Hollywood was cranking out in the 60s where whiteman=good & natives=evil, this film begins with a more objective angle showing the Zulu tribe to be human, intelligent, admirable and more honourable than any other warrior race while the British are (at first) shown to be arrogant, disrespectful and parasitic. The film lingers on this paradigm, but perhaps it would have been too progressive in 1964 to openly suggest that the native people deserved the land more (just as with cowboys & indians), so we never get fulfillment of this thought.

A second interesting theme is that war is glorified butchery and nothing good comes of it. Again, this film flirts with that progressive message; however by midway, the principal character who advocates that stance is reduced to insane, irritating rants. So again, a powerful philosophy is buried. We do return to it later, but it is somewhat watered down.

Instead of philosophy, we get some very suspenseful battle scenes, first class acting, and great cinematography showing a gorgeous landscape (with a magnificent soundtrack to go with it). So even though I'm a bit disappointed that the film dropped the ball on philosophy, I'm very impressed with the rest of the package.

Michael Caine is riveting in a role unlike any other I've seen. His character is cold, cocky, pretentious & a real arse. But dang it, you end up loving him by the end of the film.

I can't imagine that anyone would ever regret watching "Zulu", so if you have a chance to see it (or buy it used at Blockbuster for $4 like I did), go for it.

Simply an Incredible Film

[jmverville · 10/10 · 20 October 2004]

When one sees this film you know great pains were taken in the making of this masterpiece -- of all of the films that I have seen I found this one to be one of the classics that sets a standard for film. Great effort was put into the historical tale-telling. From political and social commentary to great action sequences Zulu is one of the more complete films that you will ever see, having something for everyone.

I enjoyed the human aspect of different men, coming together under duress to fight bravely in the face of overwhelming odds; it shows normal men coming together and accomplishing something great in the face of opposition and all the human story that goes along with it. A must-see for anyone who enjoys action & war films.

Recommended

[jose-cruz53 · 7/10 · 8 December 2012]

This film is pretty much a very well executed battle scene. The film shows, in a rather ironic way, how the "gallant" British, the ones who "gave civilization to the African barbarian tribes, in small numbers defended the honor of the civilized world against a massive African barbarian horde that seeks to destroy the British forces and hence the light brought by the British Empire into this forsaken land. But thanks to our gallant soldiers, who killed dozens of barbarians for every man lost, the victory was ours and, hence, it was a victory in the name of civilization and progress."

Yes, it is a very propaganda like film and the fun one has when watching this film is how cartoonish the British soldiers and their African enemies look and act. With their heavy accent and their discipline and their ludicrous red uniforms that don't make any military sense at all, this film is one huge barrel of fun.

Courage, Honor, Humanity .... War

[geek-4 · 10/10 · 27 April 1999]

There can be no "War Movie" which is not at the same time an "Anti-war Movie". The nearly unique aspect of this movie is that it depicts that rare event in human conflict; a battle in which both sides may be said to have won. And both sides lost, of course. Lives, hopes, aspirations. Incredible performances by Stanley Baker, a very YOUNG Michael Caine. Jack Hawkins plays a credible drunken minister, and Nigel Greene delivers the eternally memorable line; when asked by a frightened soldier "why us?" Color Sergeant Bourne implacably replies "Because we're here, lad. Because we're here." It's as impossible to ignore the fine, sensitive scripting as the surprisingly lucid depiction of The Battle of Roark's Drift. Historical inaccuracies are in petty details only; the sense of simultaneous exaltation and shame that a soldier feels after surviving his first battle has never been more accurately portrayed. Where else can you watch the making of heroes from such obviously human material? Stanley Baker's determination to make this film has earned him a place in theater history.

How to Pick Sides?

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 18 July 2017]

Zululand, South Africa, 1879. The British are fighting the Zulus and one of their columns has just been wiped out at Isandlwana. The Zulus next fix their sights on the small British outpost at Rorke's Drift.

This is an interesting film in that it puts the viewer in an awkward position. On the one hand, you want to root for the underdog, right? A couple hundred soldiers against thousands... you want to see them win. But this is now 1964 (or 2017 if you're me) and we have different ideas about colonialism. This land belongs to the locals -- why should we encourage the British? Regardless, this is a great early film from Michael Caine and he is almost unrecognizable to us who know him as the elderly (or at least distinguished) gentleman he became.

Overlong and Tedious

[kenjha · 4/10 · 22 March 2011]

This is an overlong and tedious war film with little plot. The first third of the film focuses on the British soldiers as they prepare for the Zulu attack, but these scenes are random and dull. The rest of the film is devoted to poorly executed battle scenes featuring fake combat and theatrical deaths. Although they outnumber the British 40 to one, the Zulu attack in small waves using spears and predictably get slaughtered by the gun-wielding British. Why would the Zulu utilize such an idiotic tactic after having demonstrated their military prowess in slaughtering 1200 British soldiers days before? Baker and Caine (in his film debut) are OK, but Hawkins chews the scenery as a preacher.

A tribute to both sides of an uneven war.

[Koncorde · 16 February 2003]

ZULU steers away from making one side good and one side bad. Okay, we identify with the British troops in the face of insurmountable odds and all that - but you have to admire the ZULU warriors all the more for going up against them unfalteringly and the 'pan' across their fallen bodies isn't so much a moment of joy for the Brits saying "Ha, look how many we've killed of you lot" as opposed to clearly showing what an awful waste of life it all actually was.

The film clearly marks out why the British Army was as good as it was. Organisation. Okay, we got butchered a couple of times, but when placed in a position with time to ready ourselves the British forces where pretty unbeatable. One of the huge advantages being the fact that often we were going up against quite primitive 'warriors' with even more primitive weapons. The whole staying smart, obeying orders and keeping in line, firing in order helped to saved all those mens lives and is a neatly condensed show of arms to everybody out there. Each setpiece of British organisation re-inforces just how good they were, just how well they were drilled and just how murderous they could be with their efforts.

The film clearly marks out why the ZULU forces wasn't quite so good. It wasn't a lack of courage or absence of valour, it was simply down to the fact that they were outclassed weapon and organisation wise. Okay, they made pretty well organised charges and all that, but against rifles that's just cannon fodder. But as is pointed out by the Dutch guy, they're merely counting your guns. The ZULU's in the film aren't daft guys in furry underpants, they're the bravest warriors ever seen (or ever likely to be seen). Well organised forces wilted in the face of British troops during that period, they didn't. The fact they salute the British and walk away merely adds to their nobility and patheticises the British efforts - eventually they would have crumbled, the British would have lost against such odds if the Zulus had pressed all at once. They didn't. They walked away saluting the British effort. That moment alone, with Caine blazing about how they're being taunted and the Dutch guy chuckling to himself struggling to believe what is actually taking place is the icing on the cake of the gradually increasing tension.

For a moment of absolute spine tingling tension you can't beat the ZULU singing being countered by the Welsh Choir of voices. It's an equaliser as such, a moment of contrast and compare between the rigid red suited Brits and the tribal shield clapping chanting.

John Barry's music is a constant presence and always perfectly suited to the moment, I'd be interested to know the content of the ZULU chants though, whether they are authentic (which I figure they are) or simply picked out by the director for looking the most intimidating.

Top film, no insult to anybody.

With Alamo Like Odds

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 16 April 2007]

Zulu is the filmed account of the Battle of Rorke's Drift during the war against the Zulu nation in the part of South Africa known as Natal. It's not an explanation of policy as to why the British were in Africa, just an account of 139 brave soldiers successfully holding off 4000 to 5000 Zulu warriors, the fiercest fighters in that part of Africa.

To put in American terms for the rest of us Yanks, the British army was facing the same kind of odds the Texans did at the Alamo. They also were not certain any kind of relief was coming because the day before, on January 21, 1879 the army had sustained a cataclysmic defeat against those same Zulus at Isandlwana. Out of 850 soldiers about 50 of them survived, in no shape to give aid to anybody. It was the British equivalent of The Little Big Horn which had taken place on the American frontier three years earlier.

But on January 22,23 of 1879 the best of that generation in the United Kingdom performed to the max for Queen and country. Stanley Baker and Michael Caine play the two lieutenants, the engineer and the shave-tail from Sandhurst who commanded the troops at Rorke's Drift.

Just a brief bit of research on the internet indicated to me that I saw a fairly accurate account of just what went on for those two days. Zulu combines what is sometimes impossible, good history with good entertainment.

If it's broadcast it's not to be missed.

Excellent

[gagana · 10/10 · 2 April 2013]

Having visited the battlefields myself, (including Isandlwana), I can say that 'Zulu' tries hard to be accurate. It is difficult because of technological constraints and the audience of the time but the film does try. Importantly, it gives credibility to the Zulu warriors. In fact, as many Zulus volunteered to make the film, this adds credibility. Bromhead, played by Caine, plays a very good part, and is very entertaining. Artistic licence is again used, as he was fairly deaf, but his relationship with Chard carries the film very well. Stanley Baker is excellent as Chard, and he clearly was moved by the entire experience, getting involved in the history after the film. If you want to see a classic British imperial film, this is it. It was made to celebrate the heroism of the British soldiers who unfortunately were stationed there. A particular quote from one of the Boer characters is particularly poignant incidentally. A visit to the battlefields is highly recommended, especially to hear about the preceding Battle of Isandlwana.

Zulu A Prize Piece of Film Making

[mack-38 · 7/10 · 23 July 2001]

Zulu is one of those films you can't help but root for a small garrison of soldiers occupying a Mission is South Africa and caught in something they didn't want or expect.

Despite one's feeling on European countries colonizing all over Africa, its still a great film. Zulu only shows a portion of what's happening all over South Africa, which doesn't really come up in this movie.

Stanley baker and Cy Endfield made a wonderful film out of history for this movie. The battle scenes between the Zulu warriors and about 100 british solders is outstanding with such overwhelming odds, 4,000 Zulu's to abut 100 british and their methods of fending off each attack is just amazing. This is the one time I'm seen the old style fighting using the stand up mode where there are 2 or 3 ranks of soldiers using the one rank fire, the other reload, and on and one, so effective.

John Barry's music as usual is helps creates the suspense and with Richard Burton doing the narration is unbeatable.