Not quite in the same category as ZULU but entertaining.The battle scenes were very realistic with hundreds of extras portraying the Zulu warriors really well.Terrific cast but somehow it didnt make an epic.
More interesting than entertaining, this is the later-made prequel to the absolute classic Zulu, Stanley Baker's utterly brilliant 1964 film, made from the days when the British were proud to be British - and thankfully before the diverse nonsense of colourblind casting. I shudder to think how they'd make Zulu now. This film depicts a big defeact of the British by the Zulus - something they paid for later.
In both films, real Zulus are cast thanks for Chief Butalezi and others (The Zulus opposed the ANC and dealt with the South African Apartheid govt which left them alone in their lands). The Zulu slave empire (like the Nigerian Benin empire) were more or less destroyed by the British by the end of the 19th century. No bad thing, as they were brutal slave-catching slave-trading empires. ALL of the native African empires and kingdoms were. The racist romanticism of them - the 'noble savage' trope - on TV docs is a disgrace. The British empire mostly did good - it was of its age and time. But compare to what came before or other empires of the time (German, USSR, Japanese, Arab/Asian). It was the most benevolent empire in history (of 85 major empires) and the ONLY one to ban slavery.
I want to watch Zulu now - a 5 star film and then some.
A all-star cast does not save this rather plodding and flat film - see Bob Hoskins here pre-fame and a very young Phil Daniels.
3 stars