Because We’re Here, Lad. Nobody else. Just Us…

“Zulu” (1964) — movie review
Today’s review is for the British historical war drama “Zulu” (1964), directed by Cy Endfield and starring Stanley Baker as Lt. John Chard (the engineer officer unexpectedly thrust into command), Michael Caine in his breakout role as Lt. Gonville Bromhead (an aristocratic officer whose privilege collides with responsibility), Jack Hawkins as missionary Otto Witt (a man of faith caught between cultures), Ulla Jacobsson as Margareta Witt (his daughter, embodying compassion amid chaos), James Booth as Pvt. Henry Hook (a reluctant soldier who becomes an unlikely hero), and Nigel Green as Colour Sergeant Bourne (the embodiment of discipline and resolve).  There is also a brief start and end narration by Richard Burton.  The film dramatizes the legendary Battle of Rorke’s Drift in 1879, where a small garrison of roughly 150 British soldiers held off an assault by over 4,000 Zulu warriors.
Background:  I don’t recall ever seeing this film on the big screen, which I regret.  I think seeing the vistas of Africa would have really added “something” even back in the day (before I was sophisticated enough to even think about vistas).  I have probably seen this movie a half dozen times and the “by-the-ranks” final battle scene dozens of times on YouTube.  Militarily, it is intellectually devastating to see this type of continuous fire and the bravery of the Zulu warriors who made a frontal charge into it.  Released in 1964, “Zulu” quickly became a landmark of British cinema.  It was produced by Stanley Baker himself, who sought to bring this extraordinary episode of the Anglo-Zulu War to screen.  The film was nominated for a BAFTA Award and is historically significant as Michael Caine’s first major role, launching his career.  Though it did not win Academy Awards, “Zulu” remains culturally important for its depiction of colonial conflict, its large-scale battle sequences, and its enduring place in the war film canon.
Plot:  The film opens with the aftermath of the British defeat at Isandlwana, setting the stage for the defense of Rorke’s Drift.  Lt. Chard and Lt. Bromhead, commanding a small detachment of Welsh soldiers, must fortify a mission station against overwhelming odds.  Missionary Witt warns of impending disaster, while the soldiers prepare barricades from mealie bags and wagons.  Over two days, wave after wave of Zulu warriors attack, testing the defenders’ courage, discipline, and unity.  The climax is both brutal and awe-inspiring, as the vastly outnumbered garrison survives through sheer determination, tactical ingenuity and FAR superior fire power.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  sweeping and visceral;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Zulu” is both a war spectacle and a meditation on endurance.  It dramatizes colonial history with intensity, balancing heroism with unease about empire.  The film’s scale and tension remain gripping six decades later.
Acting:  Stanley Baker anchors the film with gravitas, portraying Chard as reluctant but resolute.  Michael Caine, in his debut, is striking — his aristocratic Bromhead evolves from dismissive to deeply engaged, a transformation that foreshadows his later career versatility.  Jack Hawkins lends moral weight as Witt, while James Booth provides earthy humanity as Hook.  The ensemble performances create a tapestry of fear, courage, and heroism.
Filming / FX:  Cy Endfield’s direction emphasizes both spectacle and intimacy.  The cinematography by Stephen Dade captures the South African landscape in sweeping vistas, while the battle sequences are choreographed with precision.  John Barry’s score adds grandeur and tension.  The film’s use of extras — hundreds of Zulu participants — lends authenticity and scale rarely matched in war cinema of its era.
Problems:  The film simplifies cultural context, presenting the Zulu largely as a faceless force rather than individuals with agency.  While visually impressive, it reinforces colonial perspectives.  Some dialogue feels dated, and the pacing occasionally lingers.  Still, these issues do not diminish its cinematic impact.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “Zulu” is thrilling, sobering, and historically resonant.  Watching ordinary soldiers withstand extraordinary odds is both inspiring and unsettling.  The film’s layered performances and sweeping battle sequences make it a classic of the war genre.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Zulu” is a historically significant war film that combines spectacle with character-driven drama.  It is remembered for Michael Caine’s debut, Stanley Baker’s commanding presence, and its enduring portrayal of courage under fire.  If you are drawn to epic historical dramas, military history, or films that explore resilience against overwhelming odds, “Zulu” deserves a place on your viewing list.
.
Click here (27 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »