Yar, you be here: Zulu > Customer Reviews

Zulu Customer Reviews (25 - 27 of 42 Reviews)

The story as told here is full of vivid characters. Of course, the real life characters were almost completely different than their portrayal here. For example, the battle didn't break off because the Zulus wanted to honor the brave English, but because they saw off to their flank that reinforcements were coming. But it is true enough for a movie. Just don't take everything here as gospel (as you should avoid doing on anything from Hollywood and almost everything on film).

Michael Caine is glorious as Gonville Bromhead who was second in command and from a well-known military family. Stanley Baker is very fine as the engineer who finds himself in command of a military operation. There are many other fine and memorable performances, but my favorite is Nigel Green as Colour Sgt Frank Bourne. In any fight it is the Sergeants that keep everything together and the discipline necessary to continue the fighting. This is a wonderful portrayal.

It is a movie that could not be made today, but I am glad that we have it on DVD. I wish we had it in a better transfer with some more background material, but this is certainly worth having. Maybe we can get a restored version someday in the future.

A five star if ever there was one

I've watched this film a couple of times and am always impressed. It is based on the factual story of the 1879 decimation of the 24th Foot Regiment of Welsh infantry at the battle of Rourke's Drift, a small station in Natal, Africa, during the Zulu war. More Victoria's Crosses (the British version of our Congressional Medal of Honor) were awarded as a result of that action than during any other battle.

Michael Caine made his debut in the film, and Stanley Baker also does a great job as the engineer in command of the operation. Caine portrayed a diffident young lieutenant of infantry, a product of generations of soldiers. Baker's part was that of a lieutenant of engineers, there to build a bridge, who was slightly (months) senior to Caine, and thus assumed command of the troop during the action.

After a great victory against a British army of over 1,300, the small supply station at Rourke's Drift is attacked by the Zulu nation, and successfuly defended by less than 100 men over a couple day period, after which the Zulus withdrew, having suffered terrible casualties.

One gets the impression that this is the British military as it might have been portrayed by Rudyard Kipling at his best. A thoroughly riveting movie. One of the best I've seen.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

Review of a Review by Lauren (8 June 2003)
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.