Zulu Reviews

• Zulu - a tolerable DVD of a great film

  
  By A1N40I9TO33VDU on 2002-05-04
  Zulu is one of the greatest historical action movies ever made, and one of the great war movies. It is based on what historian Michael Glover terms "the most highly decorated battle in British history", the defence of Rorke's Drift during the Zulu War of 1879. Eleven of the defenders received Britain's highest award for military valor, the Victoria Cross--the rarely awarded counterpart of the US Congressional Medal of Honor. The movie is a landmark in the art of cinema for its extraordinary combination of location, cross-cultural engagement, a real story, good script and fine cast. This 1964 film never looks tired, despite my many years of rerunning it in 16mm, the Criterion laserdisc, and now the Front Row Entertainment Inc. DVD. Anecdotally, military colleges have used Zulu to show the power of directed massed musketry, and leadership and teamwork in combat.

  Zulu is the greatest achievement of the career of British actor Stanley Baker, who co-produced with US-born, formerly blacklisted director Cy Endfield. Nothing else in the genre really measures up, including Endfield's so-called "prequel", Zulu Dawn, or other epics based on British colonial wars, such as Khartoum. It was filmed on location in the grandeur of Natal, South Africa, with descendants of the Zulu warriors who took part in the original action portraying their forebears. The prominent Zulu politician and traditional chief, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, plays the Zulu leader, his distant relative Cetewayo. Mass Zulu participation in the project guaranteed the uplifting dignity and authenticity of cross-cultural characterisations of the film. Early magnificent scenes with masses of Zulu extras show the Zulu royal kraal, with a mass wedding of warriors in progress as news arrives of the annihilation of a strong British force at Isandhlwana. These unique scenes probably never could be filmed again because of social and cultural change. The nearest conceptual comparison in the war genre that comes to mind is the cross-cultural aspect of Tora! Tora! Tora!

  Stanley Baker believed so strongly in Zulu, despite difficulties in raising finance, that he sank much of his own money into it. Playing a British Army engineer officer thrust by events into leading a desperate defensive action following the disaster of Isandhlwana, he heads a strong cast, including a young Michael Caine as an upper crust infantry officer. There are wonderful cameo roles by Jack Hawkins as an alcoholic missionary; Nigel Green as the imperturbable Colour Sergeant Bourne, always ready with a calming order or a bayonet; James Booth as Private Hook, portrayed as a malingerer who is perhaps the least likely Victoria Cross winner; Patrick Magee as Surgeon-Major Reynolds, continuing up to his elbows in surgery even as Zulus try to break in. The narration by Richard Burton is very fine, and in character with the Welsh origin of the British soldiers. Welsh and Zulu singing on the cinematic battlefield is spine-tingling.

  This film deserves the very best frame-by-frame and soundtrack digital restoration and DVD transfer that technology can provide, working from an original 70mm print. Meanwhile, the Front Row Entertainment Inc DVD, about the equal of the Criterion laserdisc, will have to do. The image quality is much less sharp than we now expect of new DVD releases. The color and audio are just passable. It is in widescreen format.

  Stanley Baker died in 1976. Cy Endfield died in 1995. Other players who have passed on include Jack Hawkins in 1973; Nigel Green in 1972; and Patrick Magee in 1982. Before all key players in this project die, a retrospective on the making of the film--interviews, at least, with participants like Michael Caine and Mangosuthu Buthelezi--should be compiled for a new collector's edition DVD. At the time of writing, Sir Michael Caine (age 69) seems to be enjoying the afterglow of his prolific career in cinema and dabbles in restaurants, and Dr Buthelezi (age 74) is Minister for Home Affairs in the Government of South Africa. James Booth (age 69) continues on stage and screen.

  Michael Glover's book, "Rorke's Drift" (Wordsworth Editions 1997) is recommended reading for anyone with a detailed interest in the historical background.
  
  

• Outstanding re-telling of the 1879 battle at Rorke's Drift

  
  By ALCTVUGB5WZG1 on 1999-01-07
  In January, 1879, a column of British soldiers comprised primarily of the 24th Regiment of Foot, South Wales Borderers, was wiped out at the base of the mountain, Isandhlwana, in Natal, South Africa. A large contingent of 4,000 Zulu warriors then moved on to the undermanned expedition base at Rorke's Drift. This movie tells the incredible true story of the subsequent battle, and of the victory of the 90 some British soldiers, many of them sick, who held their post in the face of overwhelming odds. See Donald Morris' definitive book, _The Washing of the Spears_, against which this film account compares most favorably.

  This neglected classic was filmed at a time when it was still just possible to associate the word "glory" with military victory-- without a sneer. The makers of the film avoid preaching and just let the battle tell the tale of the men of both sides. The British soldiers are not the "good guys" nor are the Zulus "bad guys," and the lone derogatory comment about the fighting ability of the Zulus is instantly rebuffed by a tough Boer cavalryman who says, "And just who do you think is coming to wipe out your little garrison, the Grenadier Guards?" This is a soldier's story about a soldier's fight.

  Did the Welsh really sing "Men of Harlach" as they manned their mealie-bag barricades?

  Did the Zulus really render a warrior's salute as they broke off the action on the second day of the battle?

  It doesn't matter. The film is accurate in the historical basics that really count.

  Beautifully filmed on location, with an outstanding, stirring score by John Barry, this film features solid but appropriately understated performances by Stanley Baker, Michael Caine, and Jack Hawkins.

  I hesitate to mention the hideous, politically correct pre-quel, _Zulu Dawn_ which was released almost 25 years after _Zulu_, but any viewer who has the unhappy experience of seeing _Zulu Dawn_ should not be put off from seeing _Zulu_, which shines in comparison.

  Whether one is interested in military history or a "movie for men who like movies," _Zulu_ is a worthy addition to a film library. From first to last, it is a compelling, superior film.
  
  

• Do not waste your money

  
  By on 1999-12-26
  This DVD is very poorly done. Every few frames the action freezes and it does not give even one minute of continuous running. I hope some other company will be releasing this movie as it is a favorite. It is not just one DVD. We tried two different copies from the same vendor and they were both terrible.
  
  

• The Battle at Rorke's Drift, Natal, South Africa

  
  By A2YE8YNNXPZ0IP on 2000-09-20
  January 22-23 1879 will go down as one of the greatest and bravest days in British military history.

  The battle at Rorke's Drift, or as the Zulus called it "Jim's Place" is magnificently portrayed in this 1964 epic filmed on location in Natal.

  Michael Caine perfectly plays the part of Lieutenent Gonville Bromhead, a gentleman and professional soldier who along with Lieutenent John Chard of the Royal Engineers (played by Stanley Baker) masterminded the defence of the small missionary station at Rorke's Drift.

  80 men of the South Wales Borderers 24th Regiment Of Foot defended the missionary station and it's 36 wounded men in the hospital against 4,000 zulu warriors.

  The Natal scenery and costumes of both the British soldiers and Zulu warriors are a highlight.

  The battle scenes were graphically ahead of it's time and the narration by Richard Burton (himself a welshman)certainly adds to the drama that would unfold.

  One criticism is levelled at the characterization of Private Alfred Henry Hook, who in the movie is portrayed as a drunken malingerer. He was in fact a gentleman and small landowner who was a well regarded soldier. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery in evacuating the sick and wounded from the burning hospital.

  Overall, as an avid historian on the Zulu War of 1879, I found this a compelling movie classic which has been watched over and over again by me and my 3 brothers( Tom, Chris and Sam)

  James Hulston from Sydney, Australia
  
  

• This is an illegal DVD release !

  
  By on 2000-01-15
  The copyright holders of this DVD edition of Zulu are traking the company who released this edition. No permission has been sought for publishing this edition. Legal action will commence soon. Do not buy this pirate edition as a correct version is in the process of being negotiated and may appear some time in 2001.
  
  
• History in Action!
  By A2XVIPXX2IZKVO on 2002-10-29
  The massacre of nearly 1,500 British soldiers of the 24th Regiment of Foot on January 22nd, 1879 at Isandhlwana, Natal Province by warriors of the Zulu Nation is on record as the worst disaster ever inflicted on a modern army by a primitive one. After the battle at Isandhlwana, the Zulu warriors turned their attention to Rourke's Drift, a lonely Missionary station where the 24th had set up a supply depot and hospital. It is the desperate and courageous defense of this remote station by 140 British soldiers against the determined attacks of 4,000 Zulu warriors that is the subject of this film.
  Zulu is a historically accurate reproduction of the Defense of Rourke's Drift. Every detail is painstakingly accurate: the uniforms of British Infantry and Engineers, the Martini-Henry rifles and Webley revolvers, foil sealed cases of ammunition, and the tactics that were used by the besieged British to fight off the Zulus.
  Extraordinary acting performances are given by Michael Caine as Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead, the arrogant, aristocratic officer who is humbled by his experience of the battle, a performance made even more impressive by the fact that this was Caine's first film; Stanley Baker, the Officer of Engineers who takes command of the detachment and leads the heroic defense; Nigel Green as the brave, correct Colour-Sergeant Bourne, the rock-solid pillar of Britishness; and James Booth as the rebellious Private Hook who turns hero and saves many of his comrades.
  Narrated by Richard Burton and featuring spectacular cinematogrophy filmed on location in Natal, Zulu is a masterful telling of one of the greatest stories in the annals of Military History, and a shining moment in the history of British arms. Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to defenders of Rourke's Drift, and this film is a worthy tribute to their heroism. It should be in everyone's DVD library.
  
  
• Outstanding true story.
  By A9SPSBOSXSV7C on 1999-11-10
  This story concerns the battle of Rourke's Drift during which a company of British soldiers, derelicts, and misfits held off five thousand Zulu warriors in South Africa. The movie was filmed on location at the exact spot where the incident took place. Real Zulus were used in the cast which includes Stanley Baker as an Engineer officer and introducing Michael Caine as a upper-crust British officer/gentleman. The film depicts how this band of men held out for three days against incredible odds, after a much larger force had been massacred at Isanlawada. Brilliantly acted, by a cast of well known British journeyman actors the action is non-stop. Recommended as one of the best war movies ever made.
  
  
• Movie version of history?
  By A1B4NBFZJY2FIZ on 2001-04-27
  Overall, this is a great movie. And by comparison with some more recent movies, pretty historically accurate. It has great atmosphere, terrifying battle scenes and marvellous singing by both sides.

  There are a number of useful books on the Zulu War that might be interesting for viewers. One is Donald Morris' "Washing of the Spears" which is a fairly traditional historical account and the other is "Like Lions They Fought" by Robert Edgerton which is written with the Zulu perspective in mind.

  For the record, in real life Chard and Bromhead were both much older than they are played (oh so unflappably) by Michael Caine and Stanley Baker in the movie and although individually very brave (as was expected of British officers of the time) were both basically incompetent as military men. As their subsequent records show, neither distinguished himself any further and both were regarded as idiots by their military peers (men who themselves took the definition of 'idiot' to new heights). The real hero of Rourke's Drift was Colour Sergeant Bourne who rallied the men, organized the defence, supervised the fighting and made sure his superiors looked good.

  In reality, British casualties at Rorke's Drift were predominantly caused by rifle fire. One of the Zulu regiments had a large supply of British rifles (a portion of those taken from the dead at Isandhlawana) and ample ammunition. However, most of their fire went high because the Zulu riflemen were untrained in the use of the backsight. Had they been better trained, the Brits would have been blasted off the face of the earth in fairly short order.

  All these points aside, the movie did give a wonderful impression of the battle. Certainly the 24th behaved remarkably well especially given the twits who were in command.

  However, my vote for courage bordering on insanity goes to the Zulus (many of whom were actually middle-aged men) who repeatedly charged a well-disciplined, well-supplied enemy armed with breach-loading rifles who were behind fortifications. Zulu accounts repeatedly mention British bullets smashing through several men at a time and the wounded almost always died from the massive injuries caused by the .45 caliber soft lead slugs. There were at least three charges during the course of the battle and Zulu assaults stopped because the men were too exhausted physically and emotionally to mount another attack. The whole battle was a very near run thing for everyone.

  As a final historical note, the Zulus were able to inflict serious losses on the Imperial Army on two subsequent occasions. Mostly by taking advantage of broken ground and poor co-ordination between units that were supposed to be supporting one another.

  The final set peice battle at Ulundi was a foregone conclusion however: British troops were arrayed in a massive square on flat, open ground with artillery, machine guns and cavalry support. There was no opportunity for Zulu troops to outmanouevre the Brits and surprise an unprepared encampment as they had at Isandhlwana, and the ammunition wagons were close by the British firing lines to avoid the problems with re-supply that may have also contributed to the earlier British defeat.

  Zulu generals had implored Ceteshwayo to withdraw but he insisted on fighting for political reasons, probably also knowing that his men stood little chance against massed rifles. The flower of the Zulu army was decimated in the initial attacks and organized resistance to the British invasion collapsed soon after. The battle of Ulundi was remarked upon by several British and other observers as sheer slaughter, but was served up hot to a British public eager for revenge for the humiliation the Zulus had inflicted on them at Isandlhawana the previous year.
  
  

• 20th Century version of a 19th Century action
  By A1PIOTD9Q0BKZ9 on 2002-10-29
  Some time after seeing ZULU in theatrical release, I found Morris' *The Washing of the Spears* and learned that some significant details of the film were in error. For one thing, very few of the defenders of Rorke's Drift were the beardless young soldiers depicted in the movie, most of 'B' Company, 2/24th, being regulars of long service. For another, the depiction of Assistant Commissary James Langley Dalton as a fussy "old maid" type was unspeakably unfair. (Dalton was in fact a former Sergeant-Major with a Line Regiment, the 85th [Kings] Light Infantry, and was the individual responsible for convincing Lt. Chard to fortify and stand against the Ulundi Corps at the mission station. For his courage and the role he played in the defense of the Drift he was himself quite justly awarded the Victoria Cross.)

  In the 20th Century, we've become accustomed to seeing the ranks of infantry companies filled with young conscripts, usually 18 to 20 years of age, and we've lost touch with the fact that most of the "Little Wars" of Victorian England were fought by battalions of regulars wherein private soldiers were commonly in their late 20s and early 30s, with eight or ten years' service in their respective regiments. Moreover, we're inclined to think of noncombatant support troops like Commissary Dalton as "civilians in uniform" when in actuality they were likely to be hardened military veterans "double-dipping" in secondary careers (when they weren't active-duty NCOs or commissioned officers seconded to support functions).

  Finally, there are the romantically heroic depictions of Chard and Bromhead with which ZULU has to contend, the characterizations of these officers being very much at odds with historical record. In reality, Rorke's Drift was almost entirely a Sergeants' fight, with Colour Sergeant Bourne and ex-Sergeant Dalton largely responsible for the successful organization and execution of a skillful and tenacious defense against incredible odds.

  ZULU is an excellent action/adventure film, and stands up well even today, but it could have been even better had it been done with greater historical veracity, paying overdue tribute to the career enlisted men who made the British regimental system of the 19th Century the exemplary organizational model it was.
  
  

• Great Movie - terrible transfer to DVD
  By A1VXPQBSCL1CZU on 2000-03-29
  Let me start this by saying that Zulu is one of my favorite movies. It's too bad because the quality of this DVD is terrible! The transfer was horrible (much worse than any VHS tape I've ever seen) and the picture actually freezes several times during the movie. The sound quality is no better. Zulu is a great movie that is begging to be done in a wide screen format, with home theatre sound support. My advice - Wait until someone releases a DVD version that does it justice.
  
  
• Buy the widescreen VHS instead! This is terrible
  By AUS0PM0MDCX44 on 2000-04-02
  DO NOT buy this dvd, the quality is quite simply the worst Ive ever seen on dvd. The format is 4:3 fullscreen, and the picture is so blocky it looks like a chequers board! This version is also illegal, and has not been transferred with permission. My advice - stay well away from this version and wait for a good quality widescreen dvd release. This version is offensive!
  
  
• Superb movie... but wait for a higher quality DVD
  By A3BV2JC1BRYSTE on 2000-02-24
  I am an avid fan of this classic movie. The quality of the DVD's production though, is nothing short of abysmal. The picture often freezes or becomes heavily pixelated. What makes matters worse is that these problems most commonly occur during the epic fighting scenes! In short this is a fantastic movie but wait for it to be remastered and re-released.
  
  
• Great Movie -- Horrible Transfer
  By AM4BPG2TH7NXN on 2000-03-26
  "Zulu" is a classic and deserves far better treatment than this! Drop outs, frozen frames, skips, video and audio distortion . . . this DVD has it all. Hopefully Criterion will soon step in and do this film justice with a decent transfer.
  
  
• Two Defective DVD's in a Row
  By A1961GO506IHK5 on 2000-04-09
  ZULU has always been a movie favorite of mine. When I saw it on Amazon, I immediately jumped at the chance to purchase it. Arriving in late March 2000, the DVD was defective - skipping from scene to scene. At such a bargain price, I didn't bother to write Amazon. Today (4-8-00) I purchased ZULU from a retail store. Once again, a defective DVD. All other DVD's work well. While the movie is one of the best action films made, it seems this DVD version was made too cheaply to be viewable. Hope others have better luck.
  
  
• Great movie but poor DVD
  By A935QW6RCRUSJ on 2000-01-22
  Zulu is an excellent movie. It contains good acting, great scenery, an interesting plot, and lots of action with a minimum of gore. I would recommend it to almost anyone. The DVD is of poor quality. The widescreen version that I have seen on PBS stations is of considerably better quality and makes the film much more spectacular. I recommend the film highly, but perhaps the widescreen VHS is a better choice than this DVD. Definitely a high quality widescreen DVD would be the best.
  
  
• Review of a Review by Lauren (8 June 2003)
  By A17TR8HBIGRFK2 on 2003-06-16
  It obviously doesn't take much effort to write a movie review here. The reviewer of "Zulu" on June 8th proves my point.

  She entitles her piece "Not very realistic." She goes on to say "I expected to see some kind of standoff and battle that might have taken place in the real world. Instead, I was treated to a spectacle that had no relation to reality." After making a comment like that, you'd expect to hear why the movie has no bearing to the real world. We'd then be treated to a point by point refutation of where "Zulu" erred, backed by the author's foray into historical research.

  Instead of this however, we are treated to inanities like: "The whole premise of this movie was absurd. The British contingent was on a mission to build a bridge across a "stream" the flow of which was no wider than if you drained your bathtub. My first question was, "Why are they building a bridge there?" No sane person would build a bridge there. You don't need a bridge to cross a trickle of water you could walk across without getting your shoes wet."

  The river in question is the Buffalo River, dear. It formed the border between Natal and Zululand. While the river as shown may have been a "trickle" at the time, rivers DO flood. Ah, well. A little mistake, you say. But wait, there's more...

  "Then, the Brit commander was totally dense. Everyone was telling him to pack up and pull back; but no, he had to make a stand. Against all odds. What was the principle involved? Sheer stupidity. Anyone with half a brain could see there was no value in making a stand. Is there value in watching a half wit do something that any sane person would reject outright? That's what this movie is all about. Watching some dense military commander risk the lives of his troops for no good reason. You want to jump out of your seat, grab him by the throat, and ask him why he's being such a dumba--. In Viet Nam, he would have been fragged by his own troops for pulling a stunt like that."

  Here, in delivering her opinion of standing fast versus retreating, the reviewer shows her total absence of military skill. The commander of the garrison at Rorke's Drift had about 140 men total; 105 effectives and 35 sick men. Even if they loaded the wounded into wagons and marched off smartly at the first inkling of trouble, they wouldn't have gotten far. The rate of wagon movement was about that of the normal British march rate: c. 2 1/2 miles per hour or 12-15 miles/day. Contrast that with the normal Zulu movement rates (circa 5 mph or 40 miles per day), and its easy to see that the Zulus would have quickly caught the fleeing column and massacred them.

  So perjoratively accusing dead heroes like Chard and Bromhead leaders of the garrison) of being "stupid" and 'insane' is not only unkind, it's downright foolish. In this case having "half a brain" might be better than having a whole, unused one.

  'Standing fast' behind fortifications (however makeshift) where the barriers offered protection from shot and spear was the only prudent thing to do. It ultimately saved the small garrison, and allowed them to hold over about 40 times their number. In real life this course of action was recommended to the commander by Commisary Dalton, a veteran retired NCO who quickly recognized the 'sanity" behind digging in. For the key role he played at the battle in offering this advice and for other actions, Dalton was later specially recognized by the Crown. (Alas, in the movie he was reduced to a somewhat weak characterization.)

  Are there historical inaccuracies with "Zulu?"
  Yep, plenty. There's no evidence the British troops sang, for example. Some of the tactics are flawed. There was no cattle stampede. But what movie has ever been made that's been totally realistic?

  Is Zulu a great war movie? Yes, it is. Can information on the battle at Rorke's Drift be easily researched on the internet? Yes, as this rebuttal review proves.

  Is Lauren a seemingly lazy, self-absorbed reviewer who fails to properly research a topic before offering her staggeringly ignorant opinion?

  You decide.
  
  

• A real extravaganza!
  By A1CDZM5YMB61PD on 2004-02-25
  In January 1879, the British launched a war against the Zulu nation of South Africa, expecting that their well-trained and -equipped armies would have an easy time. An army of some 1,350 soldiers was engaged by the Zulu warriors at Isandlwana and almost completely annihilated. Following this victory, the Zulus moved back along the British path to a small supply station at Rorke's Drift, which contained a good deal of supplies and some 150 British soldiers. Over the day and night of Wednesday, 22 January 1879, and into the following morning, the Zulus launched attack after attack against the small garrison, but were unable to overcome its defenses and finally retired to Zulu land. The British public, hungry for heroes in the aftermath of Isandlwana, were overjoyed at this plucky action, and some eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to defenders of Rorke's Drift. This is their story.

  OK, as always with Hollywood, you must accept that history will be changed to make it more "interesting," and this movie is no exception. However, that said, this is a great movie, with lots of great action and heroism. I liked that while the British were portrayed as heroic (with just enough human weakness thrown in) the Zulus were also portrayed as disciplined warriors, honorable and brave. The cast is wonderful, with Nigel Green doing an excellent job of portraying Colour Sgt. Bourne with a great mix of almost superhuman soldiering and vulnerable humanity. And, I must add, that the scenery was excellent, helping to make this movie a real extravaganza.

  So, if you are looking for a clear-eyed and realistic recreation of the 1879 battle of Rorke's Drift, you will need to look elsewhere. But, if you are looking for a movie of Victorian-era colonial warfare, with action, heroism and lots of gunfire, then this is the movie for you. I love it!
  
  

• NOT Letterbox
  By A1KR9FA4972ZP3 on 2000-10-11
  This DVD does not do the movie justice because it is recorded in Pan and Scan not Letterbox. It is disorienting and ruins the movie
  
  
• ZULU...ONE OF THE BEST WAR FILMS MADE!
  By A2EORDJI7NGBW on 2001-08-23
  Thought as a accurate depiction of an actual historical event, zulu surprises by great direction from Cy Endfield, and performances from Micheal Caine (one of his first on screen), Stanley Baker, Jack Hawkins, and the great Nigel Green. Historians may find some of the events a little bit questionable, however military film fans will be pulled in by the action and superb characterizations. The story starts in early 1879, after the defeat of several thousand british soldiers by Zulu warriors at Iswandhlwana. The news flashes to a small encampment of british soldiers who are building a bridge over a tiny river. This group has two commanders, Caine and Baker, but it is baker who really has seniority. Other problems occur when a preacher and his daughter (played well by Hawkins and Ulla Jacobsson) arrive from the Zulu village to take away some of Baker's wounded. After their departure, the Zulu's appear. Magnificent and powerful looking, the Zulus strike like a force of nature, swarming over the camp several times in the movie. My only critique about the picture is the empty depiction of the Zulus. They seem almost robotic-like, fighting without fear--then immediately retreating--only to attack again. Perhaps of few scenes of them tending to their own wounded or showing them forming battle-attack scenarios could've made them seem more "human" in my opinion. That might not be fair to the filmmakers, who because of budget, story and time constraints could only focus on one side of the film. Still, many of the british characters are a tight mixture of hardcore soldiers and nasty troublemakers (James Booth excellent portrayal as Hook is a coward who will eventually turn hero). Director Enfield and writer John Prebble had set up shots and created sequences that make the look of the film simple but eye-catching. Enfield, Prebble and lead actor Stanley Baker (who also co-produced), whittled the film to its bare essentials...it is a war film. Nothing more, nothing else. The reasons for british occupation, the Zulu's brutality, or race and religion is not brought up. Which in my opinion was a good move on their part; they kept it fast and full realistic combat scenes. After watching the film, you'll have greater respect for soldiers and tribal warriors of that period, and a reconition that war is something to take lightly. Kudos are also deserved by cinematographer Stephen Dade (who produced great shots all on location!)and the great John Barry (the score is sweeping and quite memorable). The film is also narrated by Richard Burton. It is also sad to note that many of the Zulu actors were not allowed to see the film when it premiered in South Africa at the time. Zulu is one of my highest reconmendation, buy it ASAP...you'll love it.
  
  
• Excellent Print/Transfer in Widescreen
  By AEG80GVDWRI7S on 2005-10-11
  Over time, there have been a number of cheap knockoff DVD versions of this classic film. I can only think that some of the reviews read on this page refer to those knockoffs, most of which are pretty poor. However, the official MGM DVD release sold here is a superb transfer. The original print is in great shape with no scratches that I could see. The colors on the transfer are bright and true to life, the red tunics particularly well rendered with no bleeding. It is crystal clear and wide, wide screen best viewed on a wide-screen monitor. As for the film, it was certainly one of my favorites as a youngster when it first came out, and I still need to see it at least once a year, but it does have the pace of an older film with a bit too many histrionics to stand up well today(as if the sergeant and his men would have the time to stand around spouting verses with the Zulu hordes just over the horizon). But that said, visually it's a sumptuous film. If you've never seen it, it is well worth a visit. If you've seen it before, it's a great transfer and you can always fast-forward through the over-dramatic bits ("The Lord sayeth you shalt not kill...!). I think my favorite line is by the above-mentioned sergeant while reading off the company roster: "Say 'Sir'... officer on parade.)
  
  
• Classic British Empire War Film
  By A15279IKQ0XSLH on 2003-04-19
  I love this movie. A young, sexy beast Michael Caine in full droll mode, and beautiful brave Zulus. I think that's the remarkable thing about this film, both the British (technically it's a Welsh Division) and the Zulus come off as being outstandingly brave. And considering this film was made during the height of Apartheid in South Africa, I'm surprised the producers got away with such a favorable view of the Zulu people. The scenery is stunning, glorious locations. And the Zulu people themselves, their remarkable culture... if the scene where the Zulu warriors stop and sing in front of the Brits doesn't move you (talk about shock & awe!), something is wrong with you.
  The acting is better than average. Michael Caine, arguably the greatest living actor now, is superb in one of his earliest outings. And Oh My is he wonderful to look at. Stanley Baker is also excellent, as is most of the ensemble cast. Nigel Green as the salt of the earth Sgt. keeping the men on their toes is a stand out.
  Certainly there are moments of cheese, but they're few and far between. This is a very good war picture that sweeps you up and makes you care about the Brits (even though they had no business in Africa) and the fate of this tiny garrison. And it's based on real events, which makes the bravery displayed even more moving.
  
  
• Great movie, terrible DVD
  By A3D90TLQSXQ7MW on 2000-07-19
  One of my favorite movies since I was eight. After having seen it a half dozen times recently on AMC, I thought I would buy the DVD. At six bucks, I thought how could I lose? But don't waste it. This DVD is an awful rendition. Not only is not letterboxed (which I knew when I bought it), but the video quality is sub-par. Worst of all is the sound quality, which is tinny. The magnificent soundtrack is destroyed by this version.

  Do yourself a favor and tape the letterbox version off AMC. Also, perhaps someone can tell if the sound and video quality of the widescreen VHS version is any good?
  
  

• True Courage
  By A14SE86R3GRPNC on 2002-12-30
  As a portrayal of pure, unglorified heroism, Zulu has no equal. Both sides in this epic battle are shown as real men, warriors all, and there is no dwelling on the moral rectitude of either the British soldiers or the Zulu opponents. The scenery is breathtaking, the colors vibrant, and the action almost non-stop. Better yet, the dialogue is intelligent, and the characters are not stereotypes. This is undboutedly the best war movie ever made, and the new Troma remastering provides the best copy for home viewing ever made available. Although the DVD is obviously recorded from a film print that has been around a while, the occasional twinkling white specks and rare green cats eyes that flicker past do not detract from the otherwise excellent transfer. The widescreen picture is sharp, with deep colors and excellent contrast, and the sound is equally brilliant. This DVD version far surpasses my previous Beta and VHS tapes, and I am truly pleased with finally having a sharp, widescreen copy of my all-time favorite movie.
  
  
• Zulu
  By A2LJP6YKH03HMV on 2004-02-04
  This is my favorite movie. I have watched it over and over again and it is the most exciting action drama I have seen. It is riviting to watch because it is almost too much to beleive as you watch the battle at Rorke's Drift unfold. They say that sometimes true history is more exciting than fiction. In the case of the stand by the British against the Zulus, it most assuredly true.
  I am a history instructor and I have written several papers and delivered numerous oral presentations regarding this historical battle. Producer and star Stanley Baker has done his homework on this subject. The two hours you will devote to this epic tale will thrill and amaze you. Why? Because it is almost exactly depicted as it really happened in 1879.
  In a period of about 30 hours on the 23rd and 24th of January 1879, 142 British soldiers held off over 4000 Zulu warriors in a battle for survival than will live forever in the annals of history. These few British soldiers killed or wounded approximately 2000 Zulus while losing only 17 of their own. There were eleven Victoria Crosses and three Distiguished Service Crosses awarded for this action.
  The uniforms, weapons, costumes and even the location it was filmed at are true to fact. The story line follows the actual battle report made by the original participants almost to the letter. If you want to see a true life action filled history story on film that is actually factually correct, this is the movie.
  Stanley Baker, Michael Caine and Nigel Green are perfectly cast as the main characters in this true story.
  
  
• A Classic
  By AMI0YY352JGT5 on 2005-12-19
  This film is, quite simply, one of the greatest war films ever made. There is some stilted dialogue, but the thousands of extras, the quality of the acting and the climactic scene in which the two sides attempt to out sing each other before the Zulus launch a last attack, more than make up fo this. The battles themselves, along with the last fight in Seven Samurai and the battle of Borodino in the Russian version of War and Peace, are some of the greatest filmed without the use of CGI technology.
  By the way, 'Lauren', you say that the film was unrealistic as so few of the British died, because the Brirish win against overwhelming odds, and because their supposedly 'idiotic' commander refuses to withdraw.
  1)This film is based on a true story
  2)More of the defenders die in the film than in reality actually did (13 people died at the battle)
  3)The Brtish did win the battle, there were about 150 ofthem and 4000 Zulus.
  4) Let us suppose that they had decided to withdraw. Thy could not simply have been airlifted out; they would have to have marched all the way back to British territory, carrying their wounded, whilst being chased by thousands of Zulus trained to run tens of miles in a day; in short, if they had tried to flee they would have been all killed.
  
  
• Great Film, Bad DVD
  By A32Q4S4H7EWDS on 2000-09-26
  The transfer is absolutely the pits. This DVD is pan-scan BTW. Looks like it was mastered from VHS without any regard to varying the sample rate. When there is a lot of movement on the screen, I.E. the battle scenes, digital artifacting is out of control. Search for this title on VHS; wish I had.
  
  
• DVD buyers beware
  By A3A4CQBNKMTML1 on 2000-12-31
  Anyone thinking of buying this DVD beware, I saw the 4 stars at the top of the page and placed an order, this being one of my all time favourite films and not available in the UK. Unfortunatly at the top of the page are only the glowing reviews of the video version, I did not see til too late the reviews of the DVD. The DVD is simply a scandal, do not purchase it unless you need another coaster, see all the other reviews of this disk for all the problems and avoid this like version the plague. Keep your fingers crossed that someone does a widescreen version that does this superb film justice.
  
  
• Great film, lousy DVD
  By AS3KNLEDHB5VA on 2002-02-12
  Oh dear. Next time I promise to read the reviews before buying.

  There's a reason this film is so cheap - the transfer to DVD is the worst I have ever seen! It's widescreen, but not animorphic, so most of the resolution of DVD is lost reproducing black bars at the top and bottom. Worse still is the sound quality. And then there's the constant judder - as if someone re-recorded it with a hald-held video camera!

  Worst of all though is the source of this transfer. It's clearly not from a good print of the film. Instead, it looks like it was taken from videotape. The picture quality was significantly worse than my own VHS copy, recorded on a budget VHS machine off the BBC several years ago!

  One word synopsis - avoid. Sooner or later someone will get around to doing a proper animorphic transfer of this classic war film from a decent print - maybe even throw in a 5.1 soundtrack and do a bit of cleaning and restoring.
  
  

• Read carefully...
  By A2LWNL1BVW0MF2 on 2000-11-29
  The average customer review is based on all versions!

  The film is incredible, but this (DVD) edition is appalling beyond words - the quality is about that of a pirated VHS film, a genuine VHS copy would be a much better buy.

  Avoid it at all costs!
  
  

• Review of the DVD
  By A3PP6938O8YJYX on 2001-03-19
  Brilliant Film! Awful DVD. I have seen this film in the cinema and on the TV and the DVD destroys the brilliant photography of the original. If you like stilted jumpy action and reduced bandwidth sound which make the DVD almost unwatchable then buy this! This looks and sounds as if it was processed using a 486 computer!
  
  

• Zulu Dawn
• Khartoum
• The Man Who Would Be King
• The Wind and the Lion
• The Wild Geese (30th Anniversary Edition)