Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

grantss 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.

rogcbrand I remember reading a very long book detailing the history of the Zulu- starting with the migration from northern Africa many, many centuries ago, to their arriving in the area of South Africa, at the same time that Portuguese and Dutch colonists were arriving. It then give a very detailed history, including a great look into the actual participants in the Zulu War. "Zulu Dawn" doesn't get it perfect, but it's a lot closer to actual history than most movies come close to! I can see that many of the officers are actually pretty close to those described in the book, when 99.99% of those who watch the movie wouldn't have known if they were wholly made up.Peter O'Toole and Burt Lancaster are a breed of actor that we'll never see again and it's wonderful to see them in this, but I also loved the performance of all the others. As a kid the image that always stuck in my head was of Melville, toward the end of the battle, jumping his horse over a wrecked cannon, with the Regimental Colours flowing.This is one of those few movies I want to watch once a year, over and over.

Mark Tyler It is frustrating to see so many reviews here that insist on going beyond a review of the movie to comment on history as portrayed therein. Nearly everything I've read in a survey of the reviews here is rubbish. I've studied the battle for years, and have been to the battle site.The movie is excellent, and it is superficially accurate with respect to the battle, but much is left out, and still more is injected that doesn't belong.First of all, there is an anti-war sentiment throughout the movie that seems to be pinging off the end of Vietnam. Newman Noggs for instance appears doggedly anti-war in spite of the fact that the real Newman was completely pro-war and rather blood thirsty.The conclusion is made much too strongly that tight control of ammunition led to the disaster, although it was an issue. One Lt. of the 24th took a box of ammo only to have Bloomfield shout at him not to. The Lt responded, "you don't want a bloody requisition now do you?"However, the real slowdown in ammunition came because the troops were all spread out up to a quarter mile away from the camp! You have to see the hugeness of the battlefield and how incredibly spread out the troops were.Then try carrying an 80 pound box of ammo a quarter of a mile during a pitched battle! They were too far away to keep supplied, and by the time Pulleine figured it out and sounded retreat was it was too late. They were mostly cut up trying to get back to the camp.The movie blames Chelmsford, which is fair enough. He was arrogant. By the way, he didn't just split his command in two, he split it in 7 parts! However, ISandlwana should have been able to defend itself if look-out watches had been properly kept, and the troops arrayed nearer camp. Col Pulleine was an administrator and had never been in a battle.He was caught flat footed, spread out, and was cut up piece-meal, although according to the Zulus it was still a close call...for a time the British were winning, but they couldn't hold.Notice BTW in the movie, the man Chelmsford sends with a spyglass to observe ISandlwana comes back and says, "The tents have not been struck.". Any British commander knows what that means. If battle is coming you strike the tents immediately, first so that the men can see clearly behind them as well as in front, second so that if battle enters the camp they won't be tripping over guy wires, and finally so that anyone outside of the camp will see tents struck and understand that battle is at hand. This Pulleine failed to do.Durnford by the way is held completely blameless. Its true that Chelmsford and others tried to blame things on him at the time. His orders were misplaced, and they weren't found until the 1950's, and even then they weren't readable. It wasn't until the 90's that new forensic techniques allowed them to be read. He had been ordered by Chelmsford from Rorke's Drift to the East end of the battle plain (ISandlwana being on the West end). When Durnford passed through the camp, he knew Pulleine had been specifically given command, and that he altogether wasn't to take charge, but to keep moving through. Instead, he stayed to help Pulleine.So you see, although the movie is essentially accurate, some of the conclusions you draw from a 100 minute film don't necessarily give a clear notion of what, where, and why, even though I do think the movie is excellent.Finally, for those of you wondering, Verriker was never in the fight to save the colors. He was killed elsewhere. The colors were dropped in a gully, and recovered some months later downstream from the bodies of Coghill and Melville. The person who Verriker was essentially portraying, was Lt Higginson, but he actually did survive and is the reason why we know exactly what happened in the fight to save the colors.I recommend this movie strongly, but if you want the real history, look further.

wimpur Of course there was more fun in making a movie about a victory. One has to take into account that 1879 the British army suffered two serious defeats. The Battle of Isandlwana and the defense of the British consulate at Kabul. In the last battle the whole company of Guides was wiped out by Afghan rebels. So in those days the victory at Rourke's Drift was prominent in the news. I guess that is why Rourke's Drift was made into a movie first. Nobody likes defeats and it lasted almost 10 years before movies about the last Stand of the Guides (The Far Pavilions) and the Battle of Isandlwana (ZULU DAWN) were made. As far as I am concerned they did a great job. I have seen the fake rifles and uniforms they used for the extra's and I must admit they did the trick perfectly. They are still on display at the guesthouse were some of the actors stayed. About the movie: I think it was great. Not only the acting, but also the musical score. It deserves better. Much better. Of course the historians will point out that there are flaws. You cannot please everyone. But for those who take that for granted: it is a good movie and very entertaining