It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

This was a very difficult film for me to review. It had two of my very favorite actors; Burt Lancaster and Peter O'Toole in a film of a battle of the doomed. Filming battles of the doomed requires exceptional development and pacing. Unfortunately, despite some heroic efforts to do so, the director was not able to make the film click, nor to make the characters of the British sympathetic as opposed to his predecessor, who made Zulu. No, the sympathies in this film lie strictly with the Zulus. The British in the original Zulu were fighting for their lives in a heroic struggle; the British in the prequel were arrogant asses, particularly O'Toole's general. The production values of the film were impressive, particularly the spectacular cinematography, however the music here was not as compelling as the original Zulu. One major difference between the two films was pacing. The original went into high gear after only twenty minutes. This one took almost an hour and a half to achieve that intensity. Of course, it was almost an impossible task for the director to pace a film of the doomed. Films like The Alamo and Bataan were similar films of the doomed, but both of those movies had the protagonists on the right side of good vs evil. This film could not make that claim. The roles of the good guys vs the bad guys had changed over the course of several decades. Before the sixties and seventies, the good guys were the guys fighting the Indians. After that time period, it was the Indians who were the good guys, and those who fought them became suspect. The same held true for this film. The movie is a very decent production in its own right, which is why I gave it a 6. But Zulu was clearly a better film at 8.

A fairly early example of a prequel, this film is in the most part faithful to history and makes no effort to spare the reputations of any of the principal characters or the British attitude to the indigenous population This movie for once, portrays the protagonists correctly and one feels sympathy for the Zulu cause The films spends a deal of time dealing with the political background leading up to the invasion and subsequent defeat of the British. A lot of poetic licence was taken with the deaths of Durnford and Pulleine, and the "saving of the colours" by Vereker was in fact total fiction. The battle scenes were both lengthy and in the most part accurate apart from Zulus throwing Assegais which they never did as they were top heavy short handled stabbing weapons. That not withstanding this was an enjoyable movie at the time and you could do worse than to watch this followed by Zulu! to see the whole battle in chronological order. A little heavy on A List actors of the day which pushed it over budget

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

As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.