A towering film weakened by uneven direction.

Rating: Null/10 (7 May 2002)

So many commentators have written praise of ZULU. It is one of my favorite ten or so films, so the negative comments in this review aren't meant to characterize my attitude toward the movie.
That said, ZULU really does suffer from Cy Endfield's uneven direction. Wanting to strike a balance between showing violence onscreen and not showing it, what we get is scene after scene after scene where someone is supposedly shot and clutches a place where there is visibly no wound, or where a spear or bayonet is evidently just passing between someone's arm and body instead of stabbing them. It seems, as well, that the slightest prick from a weapon is enough to fell any soldier--except the few lead characters.
I was skeptical when the Zulus' standing around and absorbing gunfire was explained as "testing our strenth" and so on. But I said, fine. Why on earth are there so many scenes, though, where the Zulu hordes just stand still to allow the British as much time as they need to advance, retreat, or what have you? Why do the Zulus--I would imagine them to be ferocious hand-to-hand combatants--walk up to their prey and wave their spears in the air until someone else has the chance to shoot or bayonet them?
Since at least half of ZULU consists of combat scenes, it is a shame that the direction of these scenes suffers. Maybe it wasn't so noticeable in 1964, but in today's world the flaws I have pointed out are almost painfully obvious.
Let me reiterate how much I like ZULU! Read the other reviews and you will find out the reasons. But, ah!--if only David Lean had directed it.