Zulu

Rating:
Summary: Review of a Review by Lauren (8 June 2003)
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: No Other Like It
Review: In my humble opinion, this is the greatest adventure film ever made. The acting is superb and the action scenes are unsurpassed. I believe that I have watched it six times, which is highly unusual for me.

Rating:
Summary: Not very realistic
Review: I was sucked in by all the glowing reviews here. 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.

Think about the old silent films of the '30's where wave after wave of Indians would attack the small wagon train and 10,000 Indians would be repelled by a contingent of 50 or 60 settlers. That's Zulu, only set in Africa. By my count, the thousands of Zulus killed 250 to 300 Brits, even though the whole Brit contingent comprised roughly 60 to 70 soldiers. Amazingly, after suffering significant losses, the Brit contingent seemed to increase in size. Time and time again, half the British contingent would be wiped out in a Zulu surge. But afterward, in looking at the number of Brit soldiers still alive, there was no noticeable loss of soldiers.

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.

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.

But, we're in movieland where these things can happen. I like Michael Caine. It's too bad his abilities were wasted in this absurdity. Oh I know, "the acting was great." Wrong. It was a plastic plot and actors acting totally out of character.

Don't waste your time watching this "greastest war movie of all time."

Rating:
Summary: An African Alamo.
Review: With other reviews being so complete in terms of plot summary, I will assume that you know what this terrific historical spectacle is about. This project was a labour of love for producer/actor Stanley Baker, and the result is an unforgettable depiction of one of the most famous battles in African history.

The credits say "introducing Michael Caine". This was not really his first film, but it was certainly his first major role, and he made the most of it. You do witness the birth of a major star, who is still turning in terrific performances to this day.

At the same time--and notwithstanding the picture on the DVD cover--it is Stanley Baker who has the lead role, and he is very fine indeed. His character is a vulnerable man, forced to command in an impossible situation. Stanley Baker succumbed to cancer some years ago--he was knighted by the Queen just before he passed away. Whether playing a villain, or in the case of "Zulu", the hero, he was a real professsional. He was also a proud Welshman, and I'm sure that the role of brave Welsh soldiers who fought at Rourke's Drift, was an aspect of the plot that he was pleased to emphasize.

Acting kudos also go to James Booth, as an unethical coward, Jack Hawkins as a fanatical and alcoholic clergyman, and Nigel Green as a sergeant no soldier would want to annoy !

The DVD is beautiful--the colours are clear and vivid--with all those red tunics, you don't want colour that is pale or washed out. This is also a film that absolutely has to be seen in widescreen, and this DVD captures the battle scenes and the gorgeous African panorama beautifully. It does indeed have a "cast of thousands"--no digital tricks here--just real people. I must agree with another reviewer on the sound--only mono ? Why ? Some extras would have been nice--there is not even a booklet inside the case. On the other hand, the price is right.

Bottom line--a visual feast, with some very fine actors to bring the story to life. Actually, I'll give it four and a half stars.
Well done !

Rating:
Summary: Best DVD edition ever!
Review: As for the movie itself, this is one of the best recreations of a battle ever made, nuff said.

The real point of this review is to reassure people that we finally have a decent quality DVD release of this movie rather than the lousy previous "knockoff" DVD releases on budget labels with faded colors and fuzzy images. The answer is--yes!

I used to have the Criterion Collection laserdisc edition which was of excellent quality and having watched the first half hour of MGM's DVD release I can say that this appears to be its equal or so close as to make no difference. Colors are bright, images sharp, audio clear. Buy with confidence. A true bargain at the price.

Only minus, practically no extras. Theatrical trailer is it.

Rating:
Summary: picture '5' sound '1'
Review: Just in case anybody is wondering, The sound on this MGM disc is substandard "mono". It's a shame,Since the film was shot in "SUPER TECHNIRAMA 70" with "6 TRACK STEREO". How can MGM do such a great job with the picture transfer {16-9 anamorphic} and completely drop the ball with the sound transfer? I hope somebody gets it right someday.

Rating:
Summary: Never seen it like this before!
Review: I'm so used to seeing this as a lousy, cropped, color-faded and washed-out picture on tv or VHS, that it was like watching a whole new film. The picture quality is simply outstanding--beautifully wide-screened so you can see the scope of the majestic South African location footage; crisp, clear and sharp images; bold, bright colors everywhere. My understanding is that MGM were able to locate original source elements of this film and cleaned them up before transfering them to disc. It shows! There is no claim that this has been remastered on the box, but believe me it has been! Hats off to MGM! The only shame is that MGM was not able to locate a stereo audio track that supposedly existed for this film (they looked, but to no avail). Still, for Mono, I was surprised at how good it did sound. No extras at all, (unless you count the theatrical trailer), not even an inlay with chapter stops listed. But after you see the unbelieveable quality of the film presentation, you won't care!

Rating:
Summary: FINALLY!! A QUALITY DVD of this great film!
Review: I will not go into a long review of this film. Its a great movie, and should be seen! But I have to say, after years of poor quality Public Domain released on DVD, some cropped, all of mediocre quality, that now a GREAT DVD has been issued. This MGM release is terriffic, Enhanced for wide screen and puts the other discs to shame. The ROAN DVD was good, but this one is FAR better, crisp picture, great color, not grainy!! Dump all your old versions and pick this one up! And for [the price], you can't miss. High marks again to MGM for this, as well as their terriffic line of Midnight Movies, that give us all those great old horror movies in quality releases!!!

Rating:
Summary: All-Time Classic!
Review: Zulu is one of the all-time great war movies - a genuine macho epic, done incredibly well. This isn't a moronic shoot-em-up, this is history done intelligently and entertaining as all heck!
The recent DVD by MGM studios is the "must have" version by serious fans. All other versions are mastered poorly and that's shameful considering the brilliance of this incredible film.

This latest MGM release on DVD has a sharp, clean picture, presented in a tight 2.85:1 widescreen ratio and good sound as well. It has subtitling and a trailer as well. The colors are vibrant and there is minimal scratches or digital "artifacts" as in other versions available. For the price, the MGM DVD is the definitive version to get.

This legendary film deserves the full "Criterion treatment" if any film does and I look forward to the day when it gets the commercial release it truly deserves. Nuff said.

Rating:
Summary: Well filmed action epic based on real events!
Review: In 1879 a British column was nearly annihiliated by a large "impi" of Zulu warriors near Isandhlwana. Afterward, a small British force encamped at nearby Rorke's Drift (a trading station and mission) consisting of 104 fit soldiers and a number of invalids in a makeshift hospital became the next target. For two days the station was attacked by waves of Zulu warriors. The total number of attackers was about 4500. In the end, nearly 400 Zulus were killed in comparison with only about 20 of the defenders, the hospital was burned to the ground, and 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to the survivors.

The movie itself is a reasonably faithful re-creation of the events at Rorke's Drift, with good acting by Michael Caine, Stanley Baker, and a large supporting cast of Zulus. The ferocity of the assault, the stubborn, desperate defence by the small garrison, and the chaos of hand-to-hand combat at the barricades can all be felt through the cinematography. One wonderful aspect of this film is that the battle scenes were shot using huge numbers of actors in the role of Zulu warriors, who were obviously able to re-create the tactics and movement of the real army of 1879. Their war cries, synchronised clashing spear-on-shield movements, and in-formation advancement create the sense of a real army moving to attack the apparently doomed garrison. This is one of very few films that gives the viewer a sense of what combat must have been like in the days before mechanised armies appeared on the scene.