How sad is this?

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The first one battle portraited in movie Zulu Dawn explain how Zulu warriors had imposed the most important defeat of british army ever,where 1.200 soldier were killed,this turn is another face of the same coin,of course the story is told by the winner and with own words,the enemy didn't have a media to tell your side story, in fact dealing with british l' ll stay back to hear such battle,one hundred probable and supposedly aren't enough to stop 4.000 zulu warriors,but the british soldiers are greatest even when they lost America!!resume:First watch: 1989 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5

heroic, great, impressive, remarkable. an entire dictionary content for define a film who remains special at each new meet. for performances and for the great script, for stories of each character and for the fight scenes. and for the feel to be eyewitness to a confrontation who becomes, scene by scene, not only epic but with solid roots. because it is the story of an empire and its people, about memories, vulnerabilities and courage, sacrifice and the right answer to a huge challenge. a film about honor. and about war. not only against the Zulu attacks. but against yourself. the admirable virtue of film remains the humanity. the escape from the temptation to be a manifesto. or only a patriotic lesson of history. remaining only a story. about few people, in Natal, resisting to a impossible to stop attack. this is all. and it is enough.

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. At the outpost are 150 British troops under the command of Lieutenants Bromhead and Chard. In the next few days these 150 troops will fight about 4,000 Zulus in one of the most courageous battles in history.Superb movie. Based on actual events with a few dramatisations along the way. Stirring stuff, showing well the courage and heroism shown on both sides. Militarily accurate too.Solid performances by Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in the lead roles. This was Michael Caine's first starring role in movies and the role that launched his career.

Zulu is a fine example of what a war movie should be. There's no attempt at tying in unnecessary back story's, oddly misplaced romances, or blood & guts and cgi action and explosions for the sole sake of transitory visual impact as opposed story.Unfortunately few modern films of the genre can match the classics of the 50s and 60s when the story was #1 and the money makers of marketing departments were there to sell the film on merit as opposed to mere profitability - Saving Private Ryan is one good example of a recent film that makes the grade, Pearl Harbour tells the 'Hollywood war story' where truth falls behind a sloppy badly after romance (Those who worked on Tora! Tora! Tora! - a vastly superior movie of the same events - must be turning in their graves!)The mention of Tora! Tora! Tora! is deliberate. Its from the era of film where both story and events were displayed from a realistic human point of view as opposed to what can be rewritten and shown through CGI. Here just as in Tora! both sides in the Battle of Rourkes drift are accurately displayed as brave, valiant warriors but not without human flaws. There's no attempt to portray the natives as a 'lesser savage animal' but merely as an alternative representation of the warrior spirit. It may be noted just how little gore is shown in any scene compared to modern equivelents, probably as this is about the battle not how much blood is on show in an attempt to crave notoriety amongst potential audiences. Death, and killing, is not treated as a game and whilst each army treats individual losses differently they both respect the sacrifices made by their own as well as the others sides warriors. What you certainly do not see is gloating over kills.The acting is good, and despite the inevitable screen treatment is based upon solid characters following scripts and scenes that closely match records of the original battle - being a true life battle its nice to see it not sugar coated with incredible feats of heroism written to suit, or trying to demonstrate the absurd notion that this was somehow a naive uneducated native contingent up against obviously superior regular colonial armyAs noted by others this wasn't a battle where either side came out as definitive winner or loser. The film follows as there is no victory celebrations simply a mutual respect as the two sides part ways. There's nothing patriotic in the movie about how the British slaughtered the miscreant natives and the viewer is left in no doubt that had the battle continued losses would have been very great on the Zulu side, but absolute on the British - anyone winning this battle would no longer have been an effective unit and thus worthy of bragging rights. ... Just for once its nice to sit back and watch a realistic war movie, based on real event, without mass cgi, consulted and unnecessary subplots - or worse still rewriting history to ensure specific characters are standup hero's, both real and worst still people who are inventions of the writers minds!This is how it should be done - and it was all done by the British about the British in a battle they didn't win in a war they aren't proud of.