Zulu Dawn (1979)

You won't be disappointed!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Zulu Dawn has some incredible photography with an epic feel it seems a lot of the plaudits for that should go to the second unit team rather than the director Douglas Hickox, who was more of a hack and unfortunately this epic was over his head and thus he delivered a less than engaging and loose film that also went over budget.The film recounts the defeat of the bellicose British forces intent on invading Zululand as the British forces are split and soon taken by surprise by the Zulus.The film has the usual cyphers from the arrogant, pompous nobility (Peter O'Toole), the experienced Sergeant Major type (Bob Hoskins), the more sensitive and noble officer (Simon Ward), the natural heroic leader of men (Burt Lancaster). There is some craftiness with Peter Vaughan as the jovial Quartermaster accounting for each bullet.There is a large cast and a larger cast of extras which makes you think what would the film had turned out if someone like Richard Attenborough had directed this film with a stronger script. This is a diffuse story, a lot of fine actors with little to do, and although the battle scenes are fine, you do wonder why the Zulus are shown as nothing more than warriors running with spears while some of the British soldiers are having a noble death.

See it – This is the prequel to the classic movie "Zulu." Starring an aging Burt Lancaster and Peter O'Toole, it chronicles the events leading up to the battle at Rorke's Drift in "Zulu." Made 15 years later, it is not quite the classic that its predecessor was. But this is still an underrated action movie. Some people even consider this to be one of the better prequels ever made. While it is slow towards the middle, the final battle is epic and spectacular. The battle lasts about half an hour, and it is well worth the wait. Once again, the British are outnumbered and surrounded. But in this movie, the combat scenes are larger-scale, and spread out over rolling hills as the Zulus send wave after wave from different directions. At the end, an officer tells Peter O'Toole's character that the sky above Rorke's Drift is "red with fire." This, of course, implies the events of its sister movie. I would definitely recommend "Zulu Dawn" to fans of "Zulu" and fans of all war movies. 2.5 action rating.

Compared to Stanley Baker's earlier 'Zulu', 'Zulu Dawn', is a bit of an apologia.The movie features all of the right ingredients. There is excellent on-site location work. The cast is a top drawer A-list from both sides of the Atlantic. A lot of money has also been spent on costumes, props and other technical issues. Yet the whole thing seems to languish in a disjointed kind of way. Instead of a set-piece battle we see any number of skirmishes. They might more accurately represent history - but just don't add up to a particularly tense and exciting spectacle.No nation likes to be reminded of its debacles, and Britain having fought so many wars, has inevitably accumulated an uncomfortable number of reversals. This is why the likes of Isandlwana tend to get swept under the mat, whilst Rorke's Drift is hallowed by history.What this movie does demonstrate is the fact that - for the most part - Britain ended victorious more as a consequence of the good sense of middle-ranking and non-commissioned officers, supported by the discipline and fighting spirit of the men, rather than by the dilatory, cack-handed, out-of-date, upper-class buffoons who loused up their strategies time and time again. Lions led by donkeys, as the saying goes. In the above regard, 'Zulu Dawn' may deserve its place in British movie (and literal) history, but as a piece of entertainment it's a bit of a disappointment. It may be that this particular conflict does not lend itself to entertaining cinema.

"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.