SimonJack Coming 15 years after "Zulu," this film is the prequel to that box office success. But, unlike it, "Zulu Dawn" was a box office flop. I won't pretend to understand the different receptions. One possibility might be that "Zulu" was a film of almost constant, intense action or anticipation; whereas, much of this film has no action until the last third, and where it does, the split between three segments could be distracting. And, even with the fighting, it doesn't have great tension. Otherwise, both films had very good production values. The first had a cast of lesser fame. This prequel had several huge names of the silver screen. "Zulu" was about the successful defense of Rorke's Drift in South Africa by a British force of 155 men against a Zulu force of 3,000 to 4,000 that attacked several times over 10 hours. That began on a day in which a British Force of 1,800 men several miles away was defeated and almost annihilated by 20,000 to 30,000 Zulus in the Battle of Isandlwana. This film is about that earlier British defeat Filming was again done in South Africa, on or near actual locations. The film has a tremendous supporting cast and a huge cast of extras for the Zulu warriors. The authenticity of the props (cannons, rifles, wagon, etc.) is impressive. And, while some of the screenplay was fiction, it generally held to the factual details of the battle and the characters. The only thing that seemed not quite right to me was Peter O'Toole as Lord Chelmsford. He seemed awkward in the saddle, and otherwise not engaged in the part. O'Toole is one of the truly great actors of the 20th century, and he played a huge variety of roles. So, I tend to think he played his character this way because that's what the real guy was like. Chelmsford was somewhat aloof, snobbish, gruff and unfriendly. After trying to put the blame on Col. Durnford (played by Burt Lancaster), Chelmsford ultimately was blamed for the defeat at Isandlwana. He had made tactical errors in splitting his forces into three groups that were separated by some distance. The history after this defeat is interesting. Chelmsford was ordered to hold up while a new commander. Lord Wolseley, was traveling to South Africa to take over. But, in order to try to save some face, Chelmsford ignored the orders and assembled a larger force that then went on to defeat the Zulus at Ulundi. While he restored his reputation somewhat, he never again received a command. And, Sir Henry Bartle Frere (played by John Mills) later was charged with misconduct and officially censured for acting recklessly. As the high commissioner of South Africa, he issued ultimatums to the Zulus that could not be met. So, his governance was an inducement for Britain to go to war against the Zulus. While most viewers may not understand these details from history, I think this film accurately portrays the real events that led up to the Battle of Isandlwana and the rest of the story of the conquest of Zululand. "Zulu Dawn" isn't on the level of the first film, but it is a very good movie and addition to the history of the Anglo-Zulu War.

Colin Keane A fairly early example of a prequel, this film is in the most part faithful to history and makes no effort to spare the reputations of any of the principal characters or the British attitude to the indigenous population This movie for once, portrays the protagonists correctly and one feels sympathy for the Zulu cause The films spends a deal of time dealing with the political background leading up to the invasion and subsequent defeat of the British. A lot of poetic licence was taken with the deaths of Durnford and Pulleine, and the "saving of the colours" by Vereker was in fact total fiction. The battle scenes were both lengthy and in the most part accurate apart from Zulus throwing Assegais which they never did as they were top heavy short handled stabbing weapons. That not withstanding this was an enjoyable movie at the time and you could do worse than to watch this followed by Zulu! to see the whole battle in chronological order. A little heavy on A List actors of the day which pushed it over budget

rogcbrand I remember reading a very long book detailing the history of the Zulu- starting with the migration from northern Africa many, many centuries ago, to their arriving in the area of South Africa, at the same time that Portuguese and Dutch colonists were arriving. It then give a very detailed history, including a great look into the actual participants in the Zulu War. "Zulu Dawn" doesn't get it perfect, but it's a lot closer to actual history than most movies come close to! I can see that many of the officers are actually pretty close to those described in the book, when 99.99% of those who watch the movie wouldn't have known if they were wholly made up.Peter O'Toole and Burt Lancaster are a breed of actor that we'll never see again and it's wonderful to see them in this, but I also loved the performance of all the others. As a kid the image that always stuck in my head was of Melville, toward the end of the battle, jumping his horse over a wrecked cannon, with the Regimental Colours flowing.This is one of those few movies I want to watch once a year, over and over.

wimpur Of course there was more fun in making a movie about a victory. One has to take into account that 1879 the British army suffered two serious defeats. The Battle of Isandlwana and the defense of the British consulate at Kabul. In the last battle the whole company of Guides was wiped out by Afghan rebels. So in those days the victory at Rourke's Drift was prominent in the news. I guess that is why Rourke's Drift was made into a movie first. Nobody likes defeats and it lasted almost 10 years before movies about the last Stand of the Guides (The Far Pavilions) and the Battle of Isandlwana (ZULU DAWN) were made. As far as I am concerned they did a great job. I have seen the fake rifles and uniforms they used for the extra's and I must admit they did the trick perfectly. They are still on display at the guesthouse were some of the actors stayed. About the movie: I think it was great. Not only the acting, but also the musical score. It deserves better. Much better. Of course the historians will point out that there are flaws. You cannot please everyone. But for those who take that for granted: it is a good movie and very entertaining