Tony It's a very accurate depiction of those events, but possibly veers too much to the official line of the time. What happened there was incredible bravery on both sides, but proved what the Boers had learned long ago. Concentrated firepower within a fortified position can stop far superior numbers of less well armed assailants. Everyone there deserved a Victoria cross, but those awarded were basically due to a thankful government following the debacle of Isandlwala the day before. I love both films, but I'd rate Zulu Dawn as slightly better.

Leofwine_draca This epic adventure is one of the yardsticks of the action-cum-war film genre, offering intense excitement, bloody action, and furious violence and all within a PG certificate too. A perennial favourite of the British television stations, it tells the true story of a British detachment stranded at the outpost of Rorke's Drift in hostile enemy territory, facing an angry army of 4000 Zulu warriors intent on killing all and sundry.The main army has already been slaughtered (an event chronicled in 1979's prequel, ZULU DAWN), so it's down to our stiff-upper-lip British and Welsh heroes – including Michael Caine in his standout, star-making performance as a young, cocky officer, and Stanley Baker as the heroic older rank – to battle against the dreaded foe. The film builds slowly in the first hour, displaying some glorious African locations, before letting rip with full-scale battle and destruction come the second half. Courage, bravery, tragedy, and most of all determination is what this film is all about, and it's a hard one to top.

arfdawg-1 The Plot:Two Lieutenants, Chard of Engineers and Bromhead find that their 140 man contingent in Natal has been isolated by the destruction of the main British Army column and that 4,000 Zulu warriors will descend on them in hours. Each has a different military background in tactics and they are immediately in conflict on how to prepare for the attack. Nearly a third of the men are in the infirmary, as the welsh company tries to somehow survive with no help in sight. Based on a true story.The first half of this film is boring beyond belief. Then there's a brief fight scene. Then it gets really boring again. Then there's a really boring fight scene with lots of talking.Getting the picture? This is a movie that looks good (technicolor) and the scenery is spectacular, but Jesus, the story is a borefest.

mcguin71 Zulu is a fine example of what a war movie should be. There's no attempt at tying in unnecessary back story's, oddly misplaced romances, or blood & guts and cgi action and explosions for the sole sake of transitory visual impact as opposed story.Unfortunately few modern films of the genre can match the classics of the 50s and 60s when the story was #1 and the money makers of marketing departments were there to sell the film on merit as opposed to mere profitability - Saving Private Ryan is one good example of a recent film that makes the grade, Pearl Harbour tells the 'Hollywood war story' where truth falls behind a sloppy badly after romance (Those who worked on Tora! Tora! Tora! - a vastly superior movie of the same events - must be turning in their graves!)The mention of Tora! Tora! Tora! is deliberate. Its from the era of film where both story and events were displayed from a realistic human point of view as opposed to what can be rewritten and shown through CGI. Here just as in Tora! both sides in the Battle of Rourkes drift are accurately displayed as brave, valiant warriors but not without human flaws. There's no attempt to portray the natives as a 'lesser savage animal' but merely as an alternative representation of the warrior spirit. It may be noted just how little gore is shown in any scene compared to modern equivelents, probably as this is about the battle not how much blood is on show in an attempt to crave notoriety amongst potential audiences. Death, and killing, is not treated as a game and whilst each army treats individual losses differently they both respect the sacrifices made by their own as well as the others sides warriors. What you certainly do not see is gloating over kills.The acting is good, and despite the inevitable screen treatment is based upon solid characters following scripts and scenes that closely match records of the original battle - being a true life battle its nice to see it not sugar coated with incredible feats of heroism written to suit, or trying to demonstrate the absurd notion that this was somehow a naive uneducated native contingent up against obviously superior regular colonial armyAs noted by others this wasn't a battle where either side came out as definitive winner or loser. The film follows as there is no victory celebrations simply a mutual respect as the two sides part ways. There's nothing patriotic in the movie about how the British slaughtered the miscreant natives and the viewer is left in no doubt that had the battle continued losses would have been very great on the Zulu side, but absolute on the British - anyone winning this battle would no longer have been an effective unit and thus worthy of bragging rights. ... Just for once its nice to sit back and watch a realistic war movie, based on real event, without mass cgi, consulted and unnecessary subplots - or worse still rewriting history to ensure specific characters are standup hero's, both real and worst still people who are inventions of the writers minds!This is how it should be done - and it was all done by the British about the British in a battle they didn't win in a war they aren't proud of.