This is the prequel to Zulu(64), long in coming, depicting the events immediately preceding those of the older film and showing how the war with the Zulu nation began. As such, this film has a larger scope than its predecessor, depicting how two nations go to war. Perhaps because of this, it lacks the focus dominating the more exciting Zulu(64), but is an excellent historical war film nonetheless. The British contingent here is much larger, consisting of about 1200 soldiers. The final half hour is just one long running battle, with the Brits firing their rifles, retreating and eventually being overrun. It's a good cast - O'Toole, Simon Ward, Denholm Elliott, Bob Hoskins just before he became fashionable, Ronald Lacey as a reporter (and anti-war voice; he was the villain in Raiders of the Lost Ark), a young Nicholas Clay (pre-Lancelot in Excalibur) and Nigel Davenport in a smaller role. Lancaster is on-hand with a semi Irish accent but his is not the biggest role, as it was in most of his films; he's just one of an ensemble here. Peter Vaughan has possibly the most memorable role as the supply master for the army; in other words, he's in charge of bullets and dispenses them with a rigid authority denoting how superbly British he is at the job. It's a very dark irony that it turns out to be the worst job he could have done in this battle.
John Mills, as the one who nominally sends an ultimatum to the king of the Zulu and declares war, states chillingly at one point that this is the final solution to the "Zulu problem" - calling to mind other such statements in history and an indication of where the writers' sentiments may lie; it also begs the question, would the anti-war slant have been evident if this film were made right after Zulu, in the mid-sixties? The British Empire is obviously the imperialist bully here, imposing its standards on other nations, but then you hear that the Zulu king killed 20,000 of his own people to establish his rule. Are these people no one's business because they're not British people? Questions raised have an uncanny resemblance to world events of only a few years ago, which occurred over 20 years after this film came out. How's that saying..? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
John Mills, as the one who nominally sends an ultimatum to the king of the Zulu and declares war, states chillingly at one point that this is the final solution to the "Zulu problem" - calling to mind other such statements in history and an indication of where the writers' sentiments may lie; it also begs the question, would the anti-war slant have been evident if this film were made right after Zulu, in the mid-sixties? The British Empire is obviously the imperialist bully here, imposing its standards on other nations, but then you hear that the Zulu king killed 20,000 of his own people to establish his rule. Are these people no one's business because they're not British people? Questions raised have an uncanny resemblance to world events of only a few years ago, which occurred over 20 years after this film came out. How's that saying..? The more things change, the more they stay the same.