Zulu (DVD)

Well made movie and good character development

This was one of the first movies that acclaimed actor Michael Caine performed. It is a fast moving drama of beautiful proportion, shot in Africa with Zulu tribesmen which numbered in the thousands, the small British troop at an outpost we're expected to suffer complete slaughter, however that did not happen. The movie also delves into Zulu ceremonial culture and provides an interesting and refreshing view.

Fantastic movie with excellent acting, special effects and spectacular scenery.

A show I watch with my father when I was a tee

A tribute to the bravery of both sides. A docudrama filmed where it took place. Beautiful country. Sorefreshing that it was made before the time of computer animation.

I saw this movie when it was released in 1964 and several times since then, but recently had the urge to see it again so I went ahead and bought the DVD from Amazon. "Zulu" is a Cy Endfield / Stanley Baker account of the battle of Rorke's Drift, in which 140 British foot soldiers withstood a series of attacks by a Zulu force numbering around 4000. While the acting, costumes and cinematography are first class, there are a few historical inaccuracies in the film that should be pointed out:1. The annoying Swedish missionary and his daughter fled the scene long before the battle began, as opposed to the movie's version of them being locked up on the post during the first series of Zulu attacks.2. In determining which of the two lieutenants would assume overall command for the battle, the date of Chard's commission was actually 3 YEARS before Bromhead's, not 3 months as stated in the movie.3. The portrayal of Pvt Henry Hook is very inaccurate. Hook was a fine, obedient soldier -- not the drunken malcontent shown in the film. He in fact received the Victoria Cross - the highest battle award for a British soldier - for his heroism during the battle.4. The portrayal of Lt Gonville Bromhead (played by Michael Caine) is not entirely accurate. Bromhead was not the flamboyant, aristocratic dandy as shown in the first part of the film. While he did come from several generations of high-ranking officers in the British Army, he himself was not highly regarded, as evidenced by his low rank (Lieutenant) for his length of commission (7 years) at the time of this battle. Also, Gonville Bromhead was very hard of hearing - nearly deaf - but in this movie his hearing appeared to be normal.5. The film barely mentions one of the real heroes of Rorke's Drift: James Dalton, Assistant Commissary. Dalton, who had - unlike Chard and Bromhead - actual combat experience, was instrumental in setting up the defense of Rorke's Drift. Chard and Bromhead took advice from him in laying out the mealie bag walls and overturning the wagons to complete the barricades. During the battle, Dalton performed heroically and was severely wounded. He was one of the 11 recipients of the Victoria Cross.6. In the movie, the actor playing Color Sergeant Bourne was middle-aged and quite tall (well over 6'). In reality, Bourne was only 5'5" tall and just 24 years old at the time of the battle.7. The actual battle was fought from about 4:30 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. -- a majority of it after sundown. In the movie, almost all of the battle scenes are during daylight hours.8. The final Zulu attack after sunrise the following day never occurred. The hostilities had ended at around 2:00 a.m. The Zulus did appear on the horizon after sunrise, but they soon left after seeing a large British relief force off in the distance headed toward Rorke's Drift.9. The movie was filmed 60 miles away from Rorke's Drift in an area much more mountainous than the area around Rorke's Drift.10. The British lost only 17 men during the battle. The movie leads one to believe that they lost at least half of their force.11. Approximately 500 Zulu warriors were killed outright by British bullets and bayonets during the battle. After the battle, at least 400 Zulu warriors lay wounded on the battlefield. All of the Zulu wounded were executed by the British (shot, bayoneted, or hung), perhaps in retaliation for similar treatment of British wounded at the nearby battle of Isandlwana (over 1300 British soldiers were slaughtered at Isandlwana). The movie makes no mention of how the wounded Zulus at Rorke's Drift were dealt with.Despite these inaccuracies, the movie is well-made and a worthwhile watch. Some would criticize its lack of realism in some of the battle scenes (not enough blood and gore, bayonet "kills" that obviously miss the mark, "spears" that can be seen wobbling and obviously made of rubber), but the movie was made back in 1964 -- well before the advent of CGI and other cinematic tricks. If you are expecting to see eviscerations and decapitations, you will be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you want to view a mostly accurate, well-made reenactment of the Battle of Rorke's Drift that focuses on the bravery and tenacity of both the British and the Zulus, this movie is highly recommended.

Welsh Music

Clear,clean no distortion..

I saw this film at least five times and every time I liked it more. Below, more of my impressions, with some SPOILERS.1. The battle of Rorke's DriftOn 22 January 1879 the central column of British Army which just invaded Zulu kingdom was divided in three parts. The main force under Lord Chelmsford (2500 men) advanced deeper in the country, searching for the main Zulu army with intention to engage it and conclude the campaign early with a decisive victory. In order to advance faster Lord Chelmsford left his train under protection of approximately 1700 men (roughly 700 regular British soldiers and 1000 colonial and native auxiliaries) at an unprotected camp at Isandlwana. Further south a smaller detachment of roughly 300 men (half regulars, half native auxiliaries) was guarding a supply depot and field hospital at Rorke's Drift.On that fateful day the main Zulu army of 24 000 warriors skilfully avoided British main force and attacked by surprise the camp at Isandlwana. A little bit later the same day Zulu reserves counting around 4000 men attacked also the post at Rorke's Drift. At Isandlwana the battle ended in a total defeat for British, who were overwhelmed and lost 1300 killed (including almost all regulars). At Rorke's Drift however, where the Zulu had an even larger numerical superiority, things turned out very, very differently...This little British garrison was composed of a company of regular infantry, a small group of engineers and a handful of colonial and civilian auxiliaries. There was also a company of Native Natal Contingent (indigenous auxiliaries) and a cavalry company of Natal Native Horse who managed to escape from Isandlwana, but all those men fled (commanding officers and NCOs included...) before the battle was joined. What remained was a force of 140 regular British soldiers (infantry and engineers) and 15 colonial and armed civilian auxiliaries - a grand total of 155 men. As Rorke's Drift was a field hospital, possibly as much as ten of those men were from the beginning too sick or too badly wounded to fight... Against them advanced a force of 4000 well trained and disciplined Zulu warriors, mostly armed with traditional weapons but some of whom had also various firearms - even if those latter were mostly smooth bored flintlock muzzle loaders...The battle began at 4pm on 22 January. Zulu commanders launched a series of charges against British positions, which by moments had to be fought off by bayonets - when in the same time those warriors who had firearms (possibly as many as 200) maintained a harassing fire from neighbouring hills. The battle ended on 4am on 23 January and soon after the exhausted and disheartened Zulus retired. The butcher bill was heavy for both sides with 17 British defenders and no less than 351 Zulus lying dead. The retreating Zulus carried also away hundreds of wounded with them - when at the post almost all defenders suffered some kind of wounds, 16 of them very serious.In both battles British troops fought hard and well, fully aware that there was no escape, that their enemies didn't usually take prisoners and also knowing, that Zulus willingly tortured wounded captives before murdering them. But the defenders of Rorke's Drift did much better when facing even worse odds and survived, when their comrades at Isandlwana, who were more numerous and even had two field guns and a battery of Congreve rocket launchers, were almost all destroyed. The main reasons why it happened are the following:- unlike at Isandlwana, at Rorke's Drift the defenders were NOT surprised - they learned around 1pm about the disaster at Isandlwana and an advancing Zulu army and therefore they had about three hours to prepare themselves to battle; those three hours made a lot of difference- unlike at Isandlwana, where the camp was in the middle of an open plain and there was not even a circle of wagons available, at Rorke's Drift the defenders have prepared a defensive position; it was of course NOT MUCH of a defensive position, as it was composed of a grand total of two buildings, a small enclosure for cattle (a kraal) made from low (easily climbable without help) stone walls, couple of reversed wagons and a barricade made with biscuit boxes and bags of grain found in the depot; but still it was much better than nothing- unlike at Isandlwana, the Zulu commanders committed their troops piecemeal, with different "regiments" and "companies" attacking SUCCESSIVELY from different directions, allowing the desperately outnumbered and very hard pressed British to defeat them nevertheless one after another; this incompetence of Zulu commanders which prevented them to launch a simultaneous all azimuth attack with their whole force was possibly the decisive factor in this battle- unlike at Isandlwana, where at the crucial moment of the extremely intense battle there were problems with opening the tightly packed munition boxes, which resulted in an interruption of fire, at Rorke's Drift there was not even one moment of problem with munitions; all men received an ample supply before battle and more munitions were carried and distributed during the battle, mostly by those sick and wounded soldiers who were not fully able to fight themselves.- finally, unlike Lt. Col. Pulleine and Lt. Col. Durnford at Isandlwana, Lieutenants Chard and Bromhead and Assistant Commissary Dalton (civilian working for the army) who commanded jointly at Rorke's Drift managed to organise their limited resources in their improvised diminutive redoubt in possibly the optimal way, not only mounting an efficient all azimuth fixed defence but also creating a mobile reserve used successively in those sectors where a crisis developed.Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders of Rorke's Drift, which was an exceptionally high figure for such a small engagement - although not, as commonly thought, the most awarded in a single action or the most in a day, as 16 were awarded at the Battle of Inkerman, on 5 November 1854 and 28 were awarded during the Second Relief of Lucknow, 14-22 November 1857.2. The film.Made in 1964 "Zulu" is a quite faithful reconstruction of this incredible battle, although, this being a film and not a documentary, the director changed some things. Possibly the most significant change concerns the ending of the battle, as in the film the departing Zulus salute the defenders with a song - such a thing of course didn't happen but it makes one helluva beautiful scene! Also, in the film the Zulus are ordered to attack Rorke's Drift by their king Cetshwayo himself - such a thing didn't happen and in fact the attack of this small British position was the own initiative of two "idumas" (princes) commanding Zulu reserve force.We are also told in the film that Zulus used at Rorke's Drift numerous modern Henry-Martini rifles captured at Isandlwana - well, it absolutely DIDN'T happen and it is a very fortunate thing for the British defenders, because then they wouldn't survive the battle. The low quality of fire arms and especially munitions used by Zulu shooters at Rorke's Drift was the main reason why their prolonged harassing fire killed only five British soldiers - with Henry-Martini rifled breech-loaders that would be a completely different story...The role in the defence of Rorke's Drift of Acting Assistant Commissary Dalton, a civilian from Commissary and Transport Department, was diminished in the film - in real life he was actually amongst those who received Victoria Cross for his part in the battle, a rather rare thing for a civilian, even under military command...Finally, the film devotes a surprisingly large part to the character of Reverend Otto Witt, Swedish missionary who warned British defenders about the approaching Zulu army and encouraged them to flee. Not only this episode is given too much time, but it also portrays this courageous and respectable missionary in an extremely unflattering way... I admit that this part of the film is actually the only thing I don't like about "Zulu". At all.There are some other changes, like the age or character of some participants, but I don't want to give too much spoilers.The most important characters were of course Lieutenants Chard and Bromley, who are played here respectively by the greatly regretted Stanley Baker (he was not Sir Stanley Baker yet) and young Michael Caine, for whom it was the first major role and THE big break which launched his great career.The film has also three main supporting characters: Colour Sergeant Frank Bourne (Nigel Green), an extremely impressive NCO, Private Henry Hook (James Booth) who begins the film being under arrest and Private Owen (Ivor Emmanuel), who is not only a darn good soldier but also a gifted baritone... Bourne and Hook are real characters - the former was the last defender of Rorke's Drift to die (in 1945, aged 91) and the latter was amongst those who received a Victoria Cross. Private Owen on another hand is a fictitious character - but I am very glad the director created him...)))"Zulu" mixes a lot of drama and extraordinary tough fights with a lot of top quality humour. Also, the music is simply AMAZING!Bottom line, this is one of the films that EVERYBODY should watch at least once in life. One of the greatest and best war films EVER. To buy, watch, keep and pass to children. Enjoy!

Excellent quality and excellent movie

played good

First class movie

Es gibt Filme, die einfach immer wieder packen – und ZULU dürfte eines dieser Dramen sein, und zumindest in der Kategorie „Kriegsfilme“ zu den Werken gehören, die man einfach kennen sollte. Hinzu kommt: für sein Erscheinungsjahr (1964) ist dieser Film mehr als bemerkenswert gemacht.ZULU erzählt die Geschichte der Schlacht um die in Südafrika gelegene Missionsstation Rorkes Driftbei welcher sich im Jahre 1879 circa 100 britische Verteidiger insgesamt circa 4000 Zulukriegern gegenüber sahen… und wer denkt, dass die Zulus nur heranstürmende Wilde waren täuscht sich, denn diese agierten diszipliniert und mit taktischer Finesse. Keine Frage: die Geschichtsforschung stellte fest, dass sich ZULU sich einige künstlerische Freiheiten nimmt, aber im Wesentlichen wird die circa 24 Stunden dauernde Schlacht relativ authentisch wiedergegeben.Dafür, dass der Film schon fast 55 Jahre auf dem Buckel hat, schlägt er sich auch anno 2017 noch sehr anständig – sicherlich würde man die (reichlich vorhandene!) Action heute womöglich anders und etwas kinetischer inszenieren, aber der Film hat eine besondere Dramatik, die einfach sehr spannend ist. Nach dem gemächlichen und etwas behäbigen Start spitzt sich die Lage auf allen Seiten unaufhaltsam immer weiter zu.Wirklich gut ist die Leistung der Darsteller (u.a. Michael Caine, Stanley Baker und James Booth) und auch die Tatsache, dass beide Seiten weder glorifiziert noch verteufelt werden. Auch der Soundtrack von John Barry ist ausgezeichnet.Mein Hauptkritikpunkt wäre bei ZULU, dass die deutsche Synchro nicht wirklich gelungen ist, manchmal schlichtweg falsch klingt und ich das Ansehen des Filmes unbedingt im englischen Original empfehlen würde.Insgesamt ist ZULU ein Film, den man definitiv kennen sollte, wenn es um Kriegsfilme geht – und technisch auch heute noch ein packendes und historisch (einigermaßen) akkurates Werk.