They got most of it right.

Rating: Null/10 (14 December 2000)

Several posted comments point out facutal errors in this film. While it is true that some liberties were taken, ZULU still manages to condense a great deal of history and culture into what is essentially an action film.
The Zulus were not a mob of ignorant savages. They were among the most successful and feared warriors in Africa, due in large part to their superb military organization and weaponry. The cowhide shields and short stabbing spears, called assegeis, emphasized close combat, something the Romans perfected centuries before. Against other non-industrial aboriginal peoples, and even against Europeans with firearms, they were a formidable foe. Their tactical formation of the bull buffalo, with elements that engaged and encircled an enemy before delivering the main blow, is a classic example of double-envelopment.
The British incursion into Zululand was calculated to precipitate a war that the Zulus very much wanted to avoid. Only when their lands were invaded did the Zulus take the field against the British. Their major victory as Isandlwana was the British equivalent of Custer's Last Stand, while Roarke's Drift proved that disciplined troops in a defensive position could hold off the massed attacks. Unfortunately for the Zulus, going to war meant abandoning their crops and cattle, resulting in the threat of starvation. This, and the eventual deployment of a substantial British army, doomed the Zulus to ultimate defeat.
One other, rather strange note. In the movie GLADIATOR, listen closely to the chanting of the army of Gauls in the opening battle scene. It is the chant of the attacking Zulu warriors from the movie ZULU. Even the beating of shields and cries of "Usuthu!" (the Zulu's invocation of their leader} are clearly audible. Did Ridley Scott think no one would notice?