Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Coming 15 years after "Zulu," this film is the prequel to that box office success. But, unlike it, "Zulu Dawn" was a box office flop. I won't pretend to understand the different receptions. One possibility might be that "Zulu" was a film of almost constant, intense action or anticipation; whereas, much of this film has no action until the last third, and where it does, the split between three segments could be distracting. And, even with the fighting, it doesn't have great tension. Otherwise, both films had very good production values. The first had a cast of lesser fame. This prequel had several huge names of the silver screen. "Zulu" was about the successful defense of Rorke's Drift in South Africa by a British force of 155 men against a Zulu force of 3,000 to 4,000 that attacked several times over 10 hours. That began on a day in which a British Force of 1,800 men several miles away was defeated and almost annihilated by 20,000 to 30,000 Zulus in the Battle of Isandlwana. This film is about that earlier British defeat Filming was again done in South Africa, on or near actual locations. The film has a tremendous supporting cast and a huge cast of extras for the Zulu warriors. The authenticity of the props (cannons, rifles, wagon, etc.) is impressive. And, while some of the screenplay was fiction, it generally held to the factual details of the battle and the characters. The only thing that seemed not quite right to me was Peter O'Toole as Lord Chelmsford. He seemed awkward in the saddle, and otherwise not engaged in the part. O'Toole is one of the truly great actors of the 20th century, and he played a huge variety of roles. So, I tend to think he played his character this way because that's what the real guy was like. Chelmsford was somewhat aloof, snobbish, gruff and unfriendly. After trying to put the blame on Col. Durnford (played by Burt Lancaster), Chelmsford ultimately was blamed for the defeat at Isandlwana. He had made tactical errors in splitting his forces into three groups that were separated by some distance. The history after this defeat is interesting. Chelmsford was ordered to hold up while a new commander. Lord Wolseley, was traveling to South Africa to take over. But, in order to try to save some face, Chelmsford ignored the orders and assembled a larger force that then went on to defeat the Zulus at Ulundi. While he restored his reputation somewhat, he never again received a command. And, Sir Henry Bartle Frere (played by John Mills) later was charged with misconduct and officially censured for acting recklessly. As the high commissioner of South Africa, he issued ultimatums to the Zulus that could not be met. So, his governance was an inducement for Britain to go to war against the Zulus. While most viewers may not understand these details from history, I think this film accurately portrays the real events that led up to the Battle of Isandlwana and the rest of the story of the conquest of Zululand. "Zulu Dawn" isn't on the level of the first film, but it is a very good movie and addition to the history of the Anglo-Zulu War.

Good depiction of one of Britain's worst military defeats. Historically quite accurate. The writer and director do a decent job of building the main characters, though probably not enough, as you don't feel much empathy for any of them. Good battle scenes. American Burt Lancaster as Irishmen Colonel Durnford was a bit of a stretch, and a miscasting. I assume they needed him to provide the action-star quality. Peter O'Toole is excellent as Lord Chelmsford. Solid performances from the supporting cast.In the end, a good war-documentary-movie, but lacks that extra something to make it special.

Depicting what is claimed to be the worst defeat of the British colonial army against a native force (battle of Isandlwana), ZULU DAWN is a remarkable film that goes until the most little detail when portraying this battle and what preceded it (the British ultimatum against the Zulu king). It's in fact a very good production and the battle scenes are themselves very well represented. Before watching this film I didn't know about this battle, so it also worth for that, as watching this movie was almost as looking at the History channel (and to a world's history interested person like me - including political and military history – it was good finding this movie). As far as I learned the British ended up invading Zululand (in Anglo-Zulu war in 1879), but this defeat at the battle of Isandlwana against the Zulus was an infamous loss to them, mostly on their pride and typical arrogance

"Zulu" (1964) was an absolutely brilliant battle-epic: tightly directed, solidly photographed, well edited, with strong performance from all (including a young Michael Caine). Despite it's violence (more than half the film is the battle), it never lost sight of its primary themes - the remarkable courage of common men, the profound differences between the two cultures in conflict."Zulu Dawn" is a weak follow-up. In "Zulu" the characters were richly delineated; in "Zulu Dawn" we never get to know any of them, to the point where we feel little sympathy for them. It is also remarkable that the strongest acting comes from those playing very brief roles as Zulus - the Zulu Chief, the warrior who escapes to fight again, etc. All the white actors look poorly directed. And Burt Lancaster's accent is atrocious.Beautiful photography, exciting final battle sequence, and an historically accurate narrative that is allowed to unfold its own themes; but too diffusely directed, and ultimately feeling incomplete.