As dated as a box of corn flakes, but still brilliant

Rating: 8/10 (29 June 2005)

The ending of Zulu gives an excellent summation not only of the film's content, but also of its character. At the time the film premiered, it had been a century since the British army created the Victoria Cross, an award for extreme valor in the face of the enemy. Sort of the British answer to the Congressional Medal Of Honour, if you will. In that century, the Victoria Cross had been awarded less than fourteen hundred times. Eleven of them were awarded to participants in the battle depicted in this film. Unlike many films that revolve around massive battle sequences that have come since (Return Of The King, anyone?), Zulu makes the fear, tension, and bravery of the battle very palpable. Simply using some clever photography, a boatload of extras, and some awesome music, Zulu hooks the viewer from the time the battle starts to the time the battle finishes. The bragging Peter Jackson has done about the length of his battle sequences in his last two films rings hollow indeed when you consider the entire second half of this 140-minute film is almost entirely devoted to battle.
Another plus for this film is that the Zulu warriors depicted throughout are played by real Zulu tribesmen. I do not doubt that the land has grown more civilised, but then, the Apartheid laws in South Africa at the time prevented these men from attending the premiere of their own film. So maybe we are not so much more civilised as we would like to believe. Nonetheless, they give as good as they get in pure acting terms, and while they do not have any actual lines of dialogue, they are one of the best parts of the film. The rules against revealing too much of the film prevent me from discussing their finest hour (actually, it's more a few minutes), but it comes as such a pleasant surprise toward the end of the film that it earns Zulu five stars on its own. The other three are for either an attention to nineteenth century battle tactics that borders on the amazing and a powerful string of performances.
Zulu's influence on other films can be seen over forty years later. Paul Verhoeven obviously liked Zulu a lot. StarShip Troopers, which was made thirty-three years later, features a very similar sequence of shots and camera angles during the battles. Some of the dialogue is identical and even some of the musical cues sound eerily similar. Whereas Verhoeven was able to build on this influence and create a battle sequence or three that were legendary in their own right, this feat seems to have been lost on many other filmmakers. While factual errors, anachronisms, and even some very revealing mistakes are abound, such is the manner in which the characters are built that one would never notice them unless they knew in advance. The battle sequences, on the other hand, are impeccably staged, with soldiers firing in rank or strategically laying in the line of fire to test the strength of the defenders. The tension this adds to the later battles cannot possibly be overstated.
I will confess to being somewhat ignorant of 1960s-era British cinema, and admit right now that of all the names involved in this production, Michael Caine's is the only one familiar to me. Those who are only familiar with him through more recent productions such as the flat remake of Get Carter, indie British films such as Shiner, or the steaming pile that was Jaws: The Revenge will see here why Caine is one of the best-regarded film stars of the twentieth century. The dispute over command he portrays with Stanley Baker, and his manner of acting out a soldier stretched past breaking point (just wait for the ending), leave me feeling that the makers of Zulu had every right to feel robbed when they were only nominated for a singular BAFTA for best Art Direction or some crap like that. Even if you ignore the acting, especially from the extras, or John Barry's awesome score music, the cinematography alone deserves a pair of Oscars at the very least.
The only reason I gave Zulu an eight out of ten rather than a ten out of ten is because it is dated. Not as badly as Goldfinger or the two Bonds that came out in the two years previous, but the colour and presentation of the film (at least as it exists on Region 4 DVD) stamp the year of 1964 on every frame of Zulu. Not that this is anything to be ashamed of, but it does make the film less accessible to modern audiences. In spite of that, if you give the drama enough of a chance and want to see a battle sequence done correctly, you cannot go wrong with Zulu. Everyone should see it at least once.