Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

arthur_tafero This was a very difficult film for me to review. It had two of my very favorite actors; Burt Lancaster and Peter O'Toole in a film of a battle of the doomed. Filming battles of the doomed requires exceptional development and pacing. Unfortunately, despite some heroic efforts to do so, the director was not able to make the film click, nor to make the characters of the British sympathetic as opposed to his predecessor, who made Zulu. No, the sympathies in this film lie strictly with the Zulus. The British in the original Zulu were fighting for their lives in a heroic struggle; the British in the prequel were arrogant asses, particularly O'Toole's general. The production values of the film were impressive, particularly the spectacular cinematography, however the music here was not as compelling as the original Zulu. One major difference between the two films was pacing. The original went into high gear after only twenty minutes. This one took almost an hour and a half to achieve that intensity. Of course, it was almost an impossible task for the director to pace a film of the doomed. Films like The Alamo and Bataan were similar films of the doomed, but both of those movies had the protagonists on the right side of good vs evil. This film could not make that claim. The roles of the good guys vs the bad guys had changed over the course of several decades. Before the sixties and seventies, the good guys were the guys fighting the Indians. After that time period, it was the Indians who were the good guys, and those who fought them became suspect. The same held true for this film. The movie is a very decent production in its own right, which is why I gave it a 6. But Zulu was clearly a better film at 8.

Tony This film is true to most events that happened, except it obviously points to Chelmsford and the general staff as bungling English gentlemen playing at war. He actually won the war before his replacement could take his command.We know he split his forces, so everyone NOW says he made a mistake. He had no intel, no idea where the enemy where, he went looking. So why are the independent cavalry forces who had not scouted ahead of his infantry somehow portrayed as heroes. The film itself is excellent it's just the pointing of blame is as bad as then.

anarky321 a little sad to see such a movie have such a low average rating...its incredibly historically accurate and well paced with high production budget definitely a must-see if you like historical war moviesthis and the original Zulu film are some of the best representations of asymmetrical colonial warfare that is part of our history

Mark Tyler 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.