One of the greatest war movies ever filmed. Something like this could not be made today: actors & extras performing their own stunts, filming on location, using real & practical sets, movie producers & executives would laugh somebody right out of the building.
If it was remade today there would be at least some time dedicated to the Zulu point of view I suspect. Which could be really fucking good if done right but I suspect it would get overtaken by woke. 10 years ago would have been perfect.
@@jayevans5174Hook's daughters walked out of the film premiere in protest against his portrayal as an uncouth rogue. Apparently he was nothing like that in real life and was an "exemplary soldier".
The greatest advantage that the boers and the Zulus shared over their British opposition was that their uniforms were NOT bright red (against a contrasting background).
In the 19th century, such importance was not yet attached to disguise. The range of an aimed shot of an infantry weapon was relatively short. Instead, the commander needed to have a good view of his soldiers during the battle, and to identify them. In addition, the British in the colonial wars did not face an opponent equal in firepower. From this point of view, a bright form in the jungle or desert was more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It was quite a battle for the defenders at Rourkes Drift. January 22,23,1879. Roughly 150 Soldiers against an army Of 3,000 Zulu. Those martini Henry rifles fired all night. Barrels were so hot, soldiers wrapped a piece of cloth around it on the rifle barrel. This was at a time Under Queen Victoria..
When I was at the juniors school 1983/4 I joined film club, every thursday, we only had two films though back then this one "Zulu" and "the sword in the stone" I must have watched this 50 or more times as a 11/12 yr old. I still watch it to this day. Stuck with me, The John Barry soundtrack as well, epic in every sense of the word as movies used to be.
As Ordendorf said of the Zulu's main battle tactic, the horns of the buffalo. Good in an open battle like Isandlawnha, but not a fixed position like Rorkes Drift.
War has a way of creating new technology and tactics. For example, the American Civil War was using the tactics taught at west point, REVOLUTIONARY WAR tactics where smooth bore muskets we limited in range. But the advent of rifled barrels and very large caliber rounds literally slaughtered the soldiers standing in ranks. The Zulu were like the sea smashing up against the cliffs of dover. The disciplined English soldiers, with volley fire sent a solid wall of lead into the ranks of Zulu. Training and discipline won the day.
They were good, but they had pretty much zero experience against modern hand to hand techniques, and the culture was 'fight until you die' - unlike the British whos veterans became teachers to teach the new generation.
@@Stanly-Stud…they may have lost here at Rorke’s Drift. But they won a much bigger battle against a large British force at Isandlwana. Rorke’s Drift was a skirmish in the aftermath. Both battles were well fought by their respective victors
@@Debbiebabe69 The bayonet was designed for fighting against armies similarly equipped so the British weren’t trained against Zulu spears that doubled as swords. Similarly, the Zulus weren’t trained to fight against a bayonet. A rifle butt can be used quite effectively as a club because it’s heavy (assuming the barrel isn’t too hot to hold) but Zulu spears are light, fast, and as lethal as a sword in close quarters. Plus, the Zulus had shields to parry a bayonet thrust. My guess is that Zulus did not want to engage a bayonet at the maximum range of a bayonet thrust and British soldiers didn’t want a Zulu inside that range, opening themselves up to be run through with a sword. The British soldier may be able to charge a Zulu with a bayonet and have an advantage of a longer weapon but if the Zulu maneuvers inside the bayonet strike range, then I think the advantage shifts to the Zulu. The problem is going to be that the British are standing together for a united bayonet barrier and a swam of Zulus might actually be in each others way when trying to maneuver.
60th Anniversary of its premiere in London was just a week ago. It didn't premiere in the USA until June 17th in New York City. It closed after only 2 weeks. Why? No one in the US knew who Stanley Baker or Michael Caine was, so no one went. The movie made a lot of money in the UK however.
Verla hoy 2024 me hace llorar de lo mala q se ve las actuaciones, los efectos etc, en cambio ves "La batala de inglaterra" y se me mucho mejor lograda.
Not rebar, More likely it was a building technique similar to, if not actually Wattle and Daub. Basically, it is long thin sticks or branches woven or stacked between the load-bearing pillars or beams that make up the wall, then coated in either clay, plaster, or other materials that can be applied wet but can be smoothed flat and when it dried out it formed a decent weatherproofer for its time.
Actually King Cetshwayo had given incredibly strict orders not to attack the British unless they crossed the border into Zululand & to only for the Zulu to defend themselves against any invasion. The battle of Isandlwana happened because the British army crossed into Zululand so Cetshwayo had a justifiable course to attack at Isandlwana & defend his kingdom. However his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande who was in charge of the Zulu reserves at Isandlwana saw the success & decided to defy Cetshwayo's orders to gain glory for himself & his troops. So Dabulamanzi kaMpande crossed the border into British occupied territory and launched an attack at Rorke's Drift. The attack on Rorke's Drift was the excuse the members of the government, both the colonial South African & British, needed to officially declare war & march into Zululand which led to them crushing defeat of the Zulu kingdom
Sounds about right..Lieutenant Chard and Jame Bond making level headed decisions under extreme duress..Robert at 69 who saw all those mid 60's movies. I never have been underwhelmed by this bravery in fictitious movies or in reality. Would I stand up to this..I don't know. I missed Viet Nam by 1 to 2 years.
come to Gateshead in the 40s and you will get a bit of Stouch, even with the Zulus bless em. Politically correct comments on here shows the total ignorance of the young prats that are being shafted by their teachers and know nothing.
Kind of hard to root for the British when they were not really defending their own homeland but were actually invaders in anther continent. But I could be wrong.
The Zulus were invaders as well. The original people of what is now South Africa were the Khoisan, the Khwe and the San. The Zulus had invade sometime earlier though - if that makes the moral calculus any different.
Actually King Cetshwayo had given incredibly strict orders not to attack the British unless they crossed the border into Zululand & to only for the Zulu to defend themselves against any invasion. The battle of Isandlwana happened because the British army crossed into Zululand so Cetshwayo had a justifiable course to attack at Isandlwana & defend his kingdom. However his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande who was in charge of the Zulu reserves at Isandlwana saw the success & decided to defy Cetshwayo's orders to gain glory for himself & his troops. So Dabulamanzi kaMpande crossed the border into British occupied territory and launched an attack at Rorke's Drift. The attack on Rorke's Drift was the excuse the members of the government, both the colonial South African & British, needed to officially declare war & march into Zululand which led to them crushing defeat of the Zulu kingdom
Over 200 zulus participated in this film, and I think that they and the filmakers made a good job of protraying them as disciplined and brave warriors, not some wild mindless savages.
This film was made in the 60s, of course the acting is nothing compared to today’s. But I think the acting was pretty decent for its time and it honestly had me cheering for both sides. I don’t see how you think it’s biased, It did a good job at showing the bravery on both sides . But after all the British did win the battle so it makes sense why it could be inclined more towards the British.
Love the 'noble savage' meme. Reality is, the Zulus, despite superior numbers, ran away when British reinforcements were spotted on their way. Don't watch movies. Read books.
One of the greatest war movies ever filmed.
Something like this could not be made today: actors & extras performing their own stunts, filming on location, using real & practical sets, movie producers & executives would laugh somebody right out of the building.
And one of the best scores of all time too.
If it was remade today there would be at least some time dedicated to the Zulu point of view I suspect. Which could be really fucking good if done right but I suspect it would get overtaken by woke. 10 years ago would have been perfect.
Hooke
@@CoffeeFiend1 The film Zulu Dawn (made in 1979) was something like that, i.e. not woke but more balance between the British and Zulu perspectives.
@@jayevans5174Hook's daughters walked out of the film premiere in protest against his portrayal as an uncouth rogue. Apparently he was nothing like that in real life and was an "exemplary soldier".
One of the all time great action movies.
I saw this movie back in the 1970s great movie
@EdwardPootchemunka I saw it about 6 times in the 60s.
One of my favourite films watched it many times and had the privilege of visiting Rorkes Drift
One of the best movies ever, a classic!
The zulus retreated when they saw the relief column, thought they were ghosts of ISANDHLWANA, only 15 died at battle, on british side
The greatest advantage that the boers and the Zulus shared over their British opposition was that their uniforms were NOT bright red (against a contrasting background).
By the time of the Boer War the British uniforms were khaki.
@@Rhubbathey was red in the first boer war. Which we lost. Then Changed for the second boer war. which we won.
In the 19th century, such importance was not yet attached to disguise. The range of an aimed shot of an infantry weapon was relatively short. Instead, the commander needed to have a good view of his soldiers during the battle, and to identify them. In addition, the British in the colonial wars did not face an opponent equal in firepower. From this point of view, a bright form in the jungle or desert was more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It was quite a battle for the defenders at Rourkes Drift. January 22,23,1879. Roughly 150 Soldiers against an army
Of 3,000 Zulu. Those martini Henry rifles fired all night. Barrels were so hot, soldiers wrapped a piece of cloth around it on the rifle barrel. This was at a time Under Queen Victoria..
It would have been a treat. 😊
FOUR THOUSAND Zulu's, get your historic facts right. Robert at 69.
In fact , Zulu troops won several battles against British troops ( I mean at the time before Shaka's assassination )
When I was at the juniors school 1983/4 I joined film club, every thursday, we only had two films though back then this one "Zulu" and "the sword in the stone" I must have watched this 50 or more times as a 11/12 yr old. I still watch it to this day.
Stuck with me, The John Barry soundtrack as well, epic in every sense of the word as movies used to be.
As Ordendorf said of the Zulu's main battle tactic, the horns of the buffalo. Good in an open battle like Isandlawnha, but not a fixed position like Rorkes Drift.
Michael Caine is 91 today.
God Bless him. ❤
God bless Michael Caine
Not a lot of people know that
May Allah guide Michael Caine to Islam.
@@shafiq154 May Michael Caine decide to stay as He is.
War has a way of creating new technology and tactics. For example, the American Civil War was using the tactics taught at west point, REVOLUTIONARY WAR tactics where smooth bore muskets we limited in range. But the advent of rifled barrels and very large caliber rounds literally slaughtered the soldiers standing in ranks. The Zulu were like the sea smashing up against the cliffs of dover. The disciplined English soldiers, with volley fire sent a solid wall of lead into the ranks of Zulu. Training and discipline won the day.
A correction, British soldiers, not English. A fair few Welsh at Rourkes Drift along with other nationalities.
The Zulus sound like a swarm of bees! Frightening sound!
Their battle cry was "Usuto!", which means "kill".
They sound like feeding time at the zoo
The Zulus weren’t depicted as having much hand-to-hand or close quarter fighting skills. They were expert at it.
But they lost
The Zulus were good but the British were better.
They were good, but they had pretty much zero experience against modern hand to hand techniques, and the culture was 'fight until you die' - unlike the British whos veterans became teachers to teach the new generation.
@@Stanly-Stud…they may have lost here at Rorke’s Drift. But they won a much bigger battle against a large British force at Isandlwana. Rorke’s Drift was a skirmish in the aftermath. Both battles were well fought by their respective victors
@@Debbiebabe69 The bayonet was designed for fighting against armies similarly equipped so the British weren’t trained against Zulu spears that doubled as swords. Similarly, the Zulus weren’t trained to fight against a bayonet. A rifle butt can be used quite effectively as a club because it’s heavy (assuming the barrel isn’t too hot to hold) but Zulu spears are light, fast, and as lethal as a sword in close quarters. Plus, the Zulus had shields to parry a bayonet thrust. My guess is that Zulus did not want to engage a bayonet at the maximum range of a bayonet thrust and British soldiers didn’t want a Zulu inside that range, opening themselves up to be run through with a sword. The British soldier may be able to charge a Zulu with a bayonet and have an advantage of a longer weapon but if the Zulu maneuvers inside the bayonet strike range, then I think the advantage shifts to the Zulu. The problem is going to be that the British are standing together for a united bayonet barrier and a swam of Zulus might actually be in each others way when trying to maneuver.
60th Anniversary of its premiere in London was just a week ago. It didn't premiere in the USA until June 17th in New York City. It closed after only 2 weeks. Why? No one in the US knew who Stanley Baker or Michael Caine was, so no one went. The movie made a lot of money in the UK however.
And yet they would watch the bullshit depiction of 55 days a Peking.....maybe they should have had a few US marines in the filmm to save the day?
It closed prematurely because POC's in city protested as 'racist''. Nothing to do with Michael Caine or Stanley Baker.
Something caught in frame at 6:44. The acting so close to real flames must have been quite intense.
I saw this film when it was released,it was my birthday present,
This ought to be at DOVER
I wish I knew what the war chant actually says. Does anyone know what it means? The leader callls out and the warriors respond. Unforgettable!
Usuthu is a war cry it doesn't really mean anything its like saying ooh aah
Great war movie. Underdog AND Siege motifs in a period piece? Yes, please!
A great people asked to disband there army what would we do God bless the
Warwickshire regiment
Was this the Nike store?
if you were more intelligent, you'd realize that the real thieves are the ones in red coats...
@@ascend2me Yes, I'm aware that the Britts were real bastards.
Unfathomably based
WTF?....
... lol 😂
This reminds me of Black Friday event at Walmart in Detroit 😂
🙄
You have Englishmen and welshmen in detroit?
@@WorldGoods - The English & Welsh at Walmart are the security guards trying to prevent flash mob looting
"I saw Chard! Have you seen to your Will yet?".
The fight for the hospital was ferocious. Depicted accurately.
Good show 'Hook' as a rebel rouser but with the chips down when it counts.
Good movie
Magnifico
Typical Saturday afternoon in North Philadelphia.😂😂😂
Ya..carry when in Kensington or around Philly field after a ball game loss, like today
Verla hoy 2024 me hace llorar de lo mala q se ve las actuaciones, los efectos etc, en cambio ves "La batala de inglaterra" y se me mucho mejor lograda.
And now they date our daughters
If they respect her and if they are good for her it's alright
If you are lucky
screw these ads
Happy birthday Michael Cain xxxxgreat movie the Zulus were a proud people xxxxxx❤❤❤❤❤
They had rebar (3:09) in 1879?
Yes, rebar was invented in the 1850s
Pharaoh had bricks made with Straw!
Not rebar, More likely it was a building technique similar to, if not actually Wattle and Daub. Basically, it is long thin sticks or branches woven or stacked between the load-bearing pillars or beams that make up the wall, then coated in either clay, plaster, or other materials that can be applied wet but can be smoothed flat and when it dried out it formed a decent weatherproofer for its time.
Birmingham UK on A friday night......
ahahaha that's mean ! 😝
😂
or bradford
Welcome to "progressive" Europe.
The difference here, the Zulu warriors have guns.
The Zulu at the actual battle had some firearms...but they admittedly were using very outdated ones & weren't described as the best shots
That they have, who cares how good or bad they were, is something think about. Never underestimate an enemy.Gen Patton😬
No filme retrata os soldados ingleses se defendendo,mas na verdade eles são os invasores e quem está se defendendo contra os invasores é o povo zulu.
Se você soubesse o mínimo de história saberia que os zulus eram invasores também.
Actually King Cetshwayo had given incredibly strict orders not to attack the British unless they crossed the border into Zululand & to only for the Zulu to defend themselves against any invasion. The battle of Isandlwana happened because the British army crossed into Zululand so Cetshwayo had a justifiable course to attack at Isandlwana & defend his kingdom. However his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande who was in charge of the Zulu reserves at Isandlwana saw the success & decided to defy Cetshwayo's orders to gain glory for himself & his troops. So Dabulamanzi kaMpande crossed the border into British occupied territory and launched an attack at Rorke's Drift. The attack on Rorke's Drift was the excuse the members of the government, both the colonial South African & British, needed to officially declare war & march into Zululand which led to them crushing defeat of the Zulu kingdom
Is that Birmingham 👎
No this is in southern parts of Africa
1:00 James Bond in 1879
Sounds about right..Lieutenant Chard and Jame Bond making level headed decisions under extreme duress..Robert at 69 who saw all those mid 60's movies. I never have been underwhelmed by this bravery in fictitious movies or in reality. Would I stand up to this..I don't know. I missed Viet Nam by 1 to 2 years.
Did the zulu actually say "zulu zulu" constantly or am i mishearing them?
They chant " usuthu usuthu " which means kill.
no they said give us money for fresh water because the buffalos keep shitting in our wells 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😋
Is that London today?
Traducir por favor
Hooks VC WAS STOLEN FROM HIS JACKET WHEN HE WAS A CABBIE
probably from an invader to the uk
Даже точно 🙂😁💪 красная армия всех сильней 😊
❤traducir español
Really? Sneak up on the Zulu and beat him hand to hand combat. That Zulu has been doing close contact since he was a small boy😂
come to Gateshead in the 40s and you will get a bit of Stouch, even with the Zulus bless em. Politically correct comments on here shows the total ignorance of the young prats that are being shafted by their teachers and know nothing.
Yes but do you think British soldiers didn't have hand to hand combat experience? Come on. Not to mention they won the battle.
Not to the same standards as the British Army though.
British mate. Bayonets with a bit of guts behind them.
Why can't we all get along
Politicians.
Cuz Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, and George Floyd F'd up, that's why.
Zulus fighting an imperial super power to the death.
Hahaha 🤣😂 Ya right ! Hahaha 😂🤣
It appears that the Zulu was a "imperial superpower" in the region.
Looks like Black Friday in Chicago
Kind of hard to root for the British when they were not really defending their own homeland but were actually invaders in anther continent. But I could be wrong.
The Zulus were invaders as well. The original people of what is now South Africa were the Khoisan, the Khwe and the San. The Zulus had invade sometime earlier though - if that makes the moral calculus any different.
s
ironic that the blacks need our help to donate to digging wells so little black girls need to walk 20 miles a day to get clean water
@@charlesta654 WTF are you talking about?
Actually King Cetshwayo had given incredibly strict orders not to attack the British unless they crossed the border into Zululand & to only for the Zulu to defend themselves against any invasion. The battle of Isandlwana happened because the British army crossed into Zululand so Cetshwayo had a justifiable course to attack at Isandlwana & defend his kingdom. However his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande who was in charge of the Zulu reserves at Isandlwana saw the success & decided to defy Cetshwayo's orders to gain glory for himself & his troops. So Dabulamanzi kaMpande crossed the border into British occupied territory and launched an attack at Rorke's Drift. The attack on Rorke's Drift was the excuse the members of the government, both the colonial South African & British, needed to officially declare war & march into Zululand which led to them crushing defeat of the Zulu kingdom
Spear checkers on the loose 😊
I'm sure the Zulus were portrayed with great sensitivity. 😂
Accurately, the only way they should portray history.
@@Pucukax I agree. Although increasingly, accuracy plays less of a part than sensitivity.
Over 200 zulus participated in this film, and I think that they and the filmakers made a good job of protraying them as disciplined and brave warriors, not some wild mindless savages.
@@MGTRN-tw5uqnot only that but they defied the (at the time) Apartheid government of South Africa & paid a decent wage for their work
ZULUUUU
Imagine a version with the soldiers wearing MAGA caps instead of helmets!
Pretty much, not one of these British soldiers would be voting for these leftists. World has changed
Here is something. Be somewhere else.
❤❤❤❤op
O non hai preso i due morti
Не нужно было лезть на чужую землю.
You mean like Afganistán or ucraine 😅
I showed this movie to my BLM friend...😊
Вот настоящие индейцы наверное 🤣
Lol 😅 but they are zulus like me
I understand the Zulus. And the British soldiers fighting for Queen Victoria!😀😀
Non sopporto più questi film
2024
Very un Sporting to give them guns 😂
Bluddy inglishmarn!!😂
The English lost that war because of the gun flinching
Nope. Another win for the Empire.
Comàches never surrened look at history
Great action movie, lots of heroism, but too bad the British won. They were the real fuckers.
The battle scenes "acting" is so cringyworthy. You have to have rose-tinted pro-Empire glasses on to find this film great
This film was made in the 60s, of course the acting is nothing compared to today’s.
But I think the acting was pretty decent for its time and it honestly had me cheering for both sides. I don’t see how you think it’s biased, It did a good job at showing the bravery on both sides . But after all the British did win the battle so it makes sense why it could be inclined more towards the British.
Bririshers or willoan s
Love the 'noble savage' meme. Reality is, the Zulus, despite superior numbers, ran away when British reinforcements were spotted on their way. Don't watch movies. Read books.
Books can easily be filled with bias and falsities as anything else.
typical of that sort.
They don't like a fair fight.