Such a frustrating disappointment

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

The acting in this movie is really good.

U.K. release: 1980. 115 minutes. Cut to 98 minutes in the U.S.A. SYNOPSIS: A ham-fisted approach to the Zulu nation by British colonial officials leads to full-scale war. NOTES: A prequel to Zulu (1964), co-written by that film's writer- director, Cy Endfield.COMMENT: A staggeringly spectacular war adventure, so crammed with action there's scarcely time for anything else, here's a movie that absolutely must be seen on the wide-wide-screen to appreciate the charges by thousands of costumed extras. Zulu Dawn is definitely a movie in which the players are dwarfed not only by their surroundings and crowded, jostling backgrounds but by the foreground action itself.The actors are all uniformly convincing, though O'Toole is inclined to overdo the despair. Not that it matters in a film as packed with incident as this one.Director Douglas Hickox rises nobly to the challenge, assisted by marvelous photography, bold second unit work and a superb music score. Oddly, despite its solid cast, authentic backgrounds, fast-paced direction, awesome action and overpoweringly spectacular effects, the film failed at the box-office and lost millions for its backers.On paper, it seemed like such a good idea too. The 1964 "Zulu", expensive though it certainly was, had reaped a fortune at the box- office. Patrons deserted their TV sets for the big screen in their millions. But it didn't happen the second time around. People didn't want to re-visit a scene from 1964. Time moves on. Fashions change. Perhaps if Zulu Dawn had been released ten years earlier, around 1969 or 1970, it would have received a far warmer and considerably less hostile reception. Perhaps audiences don't like to be forced to make connections between two films that are fifteen years apart. It doesn't worry me, fortunately. I live in the past all the time.

Good depiction of one of Britain's worst military defeats. Historically quite accurate. The writer and director do a decent job of building the main characters, though probably not enough, as you don't feel much empathy for any of them. Good battle scenes. American Burt Lancaster as Irishmen Colonel Durnford was a bit of a stretch, and a miscasting. I assume they needed him to provide the action-star quality. Peter O'Toole is excellent as Lord Chelmsford. Solid performances from the supporting cast.In the end, a good war-documentary-movie, but lacks that extra something to make it special.

It is frustrating to see so many reviews here that insist on going beyond a review of the movie to comment on history as portrayed therein. Nearly everything I've read in a survey of the reviews here is rubbish. I've studied the battle for years, and have been to the battle site.The movie is excellent, and it is superficially accurate with respect to the battle, but much is left out, and still more is injected that doesn't belong.First of all, there is an anti-war sentiment throughout the movie that seems to be pinging off the end of Vietnam. Newman Noggs for instance appears doggedly anti-war in spite of the fact that the real Newman was completely pro-war and rather blood thirsty.The conclusion is made much too strongly that tight control of ammunition led to the disaster, although it was an issue. One Lt. of the 24th took a box of ammo only to have Bloomfield shout at him not to. The Lt responded, "you don't want a bloody requisition now do you?"However, the real slowdown in ammunition came because the troops were all spread out up to a quarter mile away from the camp! You have to see the hugeness of the battlefield and how incredibly spread out the troops were.Then try carrying an 80 pound box of ammo a quarter of a mile during a pitched battle! They were too far away to keep supplied, and by the time Pulleine figured it out and sounded retreat was it was too late. They were mostly cut up trying to get back to the camp.The movie blames Chelmsford, which is fair enough. He was arrogant. By the way, he didn't just split his command in two, he split it in 7 parts! However, ISandlwana should have been able to defend itself if look-out watches had been properly kept, and the troops arrayed nearer camp. Col Pulleine was an administrator and had never been in a battle.He was caught flat footed, spread out, and was cut up piece-meal, although according to the Zulus it was still a close call...for a time the British were winning, but they couldn't hold.Notice BTW in the movie, the man Chelmsford sends with a spyglass to observe ISandlwana comes back and says, "The tents have not been struck.". Any British commander knows what that means. If battle is coming you strike the tents immediately, first so that the men can see clearly behind them as well as in front, second so that if battle enters the camp they won't be tripping over guy wires, and finally so that anyone outside of the camp will see tents struck and understand that battle is at hand. This Pulleine failed to do.Durnford by the way is held completely blameless. Its true that Chelmsford and others tried to blame things on him at the time. His orders were misplaced, and they weren't found until the 1950's, and even then they weren't readable. It wasn't until the 90's that new forensic techniques allowed them to be read. He had been ordered by Chelmsford from Rorke's Drift to the East end of the battle plain (ISandlwana being on the West end). When Durnford passed through the camp, he knew Pulleine had been specifically given command, and that he altogether wasn't to take charge, but to keep moving through. Instead, he stayed to help Pulleine.So you see, although the movie is essentially accurate, some of the conclusions you draw from a 100 minute film don't necessarily give a clear notion of what, where, and why, even though I do think the movie is excellent.Finally, for those of you wondering, Verriker was never in the fight to save the colors. He was killed elsewhere. The colors were dropped in a gully, and recovered some months later downstream from the bodies of Coghill and Melville. The person who Verriker was essentially portraying, was Lt Higginson, but he actually did survive and is the reason why we know exactly what happened in the fight to save the colors.I recommend this movie strongly, but if you want the real history, look further.

Compared to Stanley Baker's earlier 'Zulu', 'Zulu Dawn', is a bit of an apologia.The movie features all of the right ingredients. There is excellent on-site location work. The cast is a top drawer A-list from both sides of the Atlantic. A lot of money has also been spent on costumes, props and other technical issues. Yet the whole thing seems to languish in a disjointed kind of way. Instead of a set-piece battle we see any number of skirmishes. They might more accurately represent history - but just don't add up to a particularly tense and exciting spectacle.No nation likes to be reminded of its debacles, and Britain having fought so many wars, has inevitably accumulated an uncomfortable number of reversals. This is why the likes of Isandlwana tend to get swept under the mat, whilst Rorke's Drift is hallowed by history.What this movie does demonstrate is the fact that - for the most part - Britain ended victorious more as a consequence of the good sense of middle-ranking and non-commissioned officers, supported by the discipline and fighting spirit of the men, rather than by the dilatory, cack-handed, out-of-date, upper-class buffoons who loused up their strategies time and time again. Lions led by donkeys, as the saying goes. In the above regard, 'Zulu Dawn' may deserve its place in British movie (and literal) history, but as a piece of entertainment it's a bit of a disappointment. It may be that this particular conflict does not lend itself to entertaining cinema.