Film

User reviews of this film

• Chris Jackson said...

  Posted on Jan 26 2012 23:43 its always been a magnificent film since i saw it in the pictures as a young boy. spectacular cinematography and yes, technically inaccurate but how many of you would have stood like those men did ? not many i doubt these days !. usual adverse comments above from the usual ignorant anti-British brigade whose disrespectful of our Army and clearly ignorant of our history.

  Report as inappropriate

• Jamie Knight said...

  Posted on Dec 21 2010 22:29 I do hope that your career as a film critic is over, for if it is not, there really is no justice in the world. A fantastic film depicting a very real part of history.

  Report as inappropriate

• Jon said...

  Posted on Sep 13 2010 23:24 Someone else's Queen and country? What are you talking about? There is no Queen of England (I'm guessing that's what you're confused about), and there hasn't been one since 1706. Wales, like England, is a part of the United Kingdom, a union of four countries also including Scotland and Northern Ireland. If you honestly can't grasp a fundamental basic like the difference between England and the UK, why should anyone listen what you have to say?

  Report as inappropriate

• Sergentcolon said...

  Posted on May 07 2009 23:51 The 2nd warwickshire regiment of the 24th of foot became the South Wales Borderers in 1881 So they are the same regiment

  Report as inappropriate

• sergentcolon said...

  Posted on May 07 2009 23:33 They were South Wales Borderers, try going to the regimental museum in Brecon and looking at quite a few of the Victoria crosses and other artifacts from the battle. This is one of my favourite films which may have some innacuracies but is still magnificent.

  Report as inappropriate

• Sean said...

  Posted on May 15 2008 21:28 Selavy's point about historical inaccuracy is well taken, however, this IS entertainment not history a lesson many of us need to continue to re-learn a la Oliver Stone and his offerings. While the battle scenes seem to pale in comparison to the graphic bloodletting that modern special effects afford us, there is still a gritty, sweaty, exhausting quality to the battle scenes. And once endowed with the epic score, we soon forget that the fighting isn't quite as graphically violent as that to which we have become accustomed . . . and so, we suspend our disbelief. We disregard the politically incorrect themes of jingoistic racism and stereotypical stiff-upper lipped colonialism in the face of the supreme bravery of both sets of combatants. Stanley Baker, as the engineer-turned-battlefield-commander and Michael Caine, in his first major role, as Victorian blueblood-turned-Victorian-Cross-for-valor recipient provide stirring performances. A great and oft-ignored movie that MUST be seen on the widescreen to appreciate the epic quality of 60s films made in the days before computer enhancements. A genuinely great film.

  Report as inappropriate

• Selavy said...

  Posted on Jan 31 2008 02:07 Another brain dead critic who thinks films are historically accurate. The army was composed mainly of Englishmen. The film innacurately portrays them as the Welsh Borderers, in fact they were the 2nd Warwickshire that were base in Wales. Zulu Dawn was about the battle of Isandlwana.
  Seriously, if you are unable to do 2 minutes research then give up reviewing films based on history.
  That said the film is damn good. A must see.

  Report as inappropriate