Good but not great

Rating: 6/10 (18 March 2005)

A friend suggested I take the film out. I have very little knowledge of the conflict in South Africa so I have few preconceived notions. I was told that this is a true story which is always a good thing. Now, for the movie, I found the scenery beautiful to look at, often quite awe inspiring. The Zulu warriors and their lady folk looked about as authentic as I would expect, with nothing looking contrived. The ritual group marriage dancing was quite interesting. The main battle sequences were quite stirring, with the sounds of many warriors singing and chanting. Truly one gets a shiver up the spine at the sound of thousands of warriors viciously beating their spears into the back of their shields.
Where I found the film to appear dated and weak were in the up close contacts between the British soldiers and the Zulu warriors. It must have been a difficult or impossible task given to the director to make up close film of people getting speared all over their bodies without showing realistic looking wounds. On the scale of that battle that would have been one huge cost to re-create. Perhaps given this, the director opted for fake jousting and fake puncturing. This resulted in people falling over just about as soon as some pointy object touched them and this really looked silly. Sure guns were going off in all directions but again when Zulu's were shot it had all the hallmarks of a school play in grade 5. It was just not believable. I know, I've been jaded with the many years of watching Hollywood big budget movies that spare no money in creating real death scenes. Perhaps it should have been left as it was, rather than the eye popping stomach churning sounds and look of death that say "Saving Private Ryan" gave us. OK, so call me a complainer.
I did not enjoy Michael Caine's portrayal as I found it confusing. He is at times effeminate, remote, too quiet, boyish, a dandy, and on the other hand can bark out orders with as much salt as the best of the boys. I could not follow what his personality was trying to create.
Jack Hawkins gave his usual flawless characterization even if that of a crazed religious/drunkard.
The film to my eyes looks a wee bit faded at the edges. You look at Gallipoli (the film) and you can see how much more superior the final product was. Different times, different director. I know. Still, an interesting historical piece.