7 January, 2011

Quick Movie Review

Posted by Socrates in movie reviews, movies, Socrates at 9:24 pm | Permanent Link

zulu

Zulu (1964, starring Michael Caine and Stanley Baker).

Zulu is based on a true event. It’s about an epic battle between British Army soldiers and negro warriors (the Zulu) in 1879 in Natal province, South Africa [1]. The Zulu attack on the British soldiers is relentless and bloody, lasting 2 or 3 days. The British are hopelessly outnumbered by a factor of 40-to-1. Nonetheless, the White soldiers do a good job of repelling the negroes. There is lots of action in this movie. One character I found interesting was Color-Sergeant Bourne, a stereotypical “stiff Brit.”

I liked Zulu. The acting and the cinematography are first-rate. I give this movie 9 out of 10 points. It’s among the better movies I’ve seen recently.

[1] Natal is now called KwaZulu-Natal


  • Similar posts:

    1. 11/19/11 Quick Movie Review 98% similar
    2. 01/13/12 Quick Movie Review 96% similar
    3. 01/07/12 Quick Movie Review 96% similar
    4. 11/15/12 Quick Movie Review 93% similar
    5. 11/29/10 Quick Movie Review 92% similar
    6. 17 Responses to “Quick Movie Review”

      1. festerbestertester Says:

        The 1964 movie was classic but the remake years later glorified the Black and demeaned the White. The Jews handiwork!

      2. CW-2 Says:

        It’s a great movie. The central message is that White men must never give in even when facing what appear to be impossible odds. The film even had time to take a swipe at a pair of nut case missionaries who regard the Zulus as their friends. The sergeant major, ably acted by Nigel Green, takes a dim view of such nonsense and send the pair packing. After that the soldiers’ moral improves, there is a lesson for us.

        The White race WILL prevail.

      3. Antagonistes Says:

        I remember this movie.

        The action was set after the Zulus attacked the British. The British had their ammunition in wooden boxes with screw-down lids. They could not unscrew the boxes quickly enough to get their ammo, and, being vastly outnumbered, were mostly wiped out.

        The survivors made it to Rorke’s Gorge (I think it was called, or maybe Rorke’s Drift) and that is where the action of this movie takes place.

        I agree with CW-2 that the nutcase missionary was , well, a Christian.
        I took him as symbolic of his nutcase brethren that are swarming about Western Lands today, with no clue about reality. Wormtongues!

        But this small band of manly men, kicking that nigger ass!

      4. rr Says:

        Same old shit happened over here. Union Negro soldiers suffered terrible slaughter at Fort pillow and Brices Crossroads, compliments of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Union Negro soldiers assaulting Fort Wagner suffered even greater carnage, compliments of South Carolina volunteers. Hollywood called it GLORY.

      5. Tim McGreen Says:

        In the new version of this movie, (produced by the Coen Brothers) Will Smith plays the jive-talkin’ Zulu Warrior Chief who makes friends with slacker British soldier Jack Black. Reese Witherspoon plays the airheaded archeology student who is saved from hungry crocodiles by Queen Latifah. And then Beyonce gets busy with Jay-Z, yo.

      6. Peter Says:

        I don’t know the new version. The original version even pandered to multicult. The film had the Zulus sparing the last British remnants and singing their praises as “brave warriers”. In reality the Zulus saw the supporting column approaching and fled (the real reason why there were British survivors and thereafter an epic tale).

        They would have certainly killed all the British if they could have done so safely. After they had fled the British remnants rushed out to finish off the wounded Zulus. It was a simple territorial fight to the death, the reality of which was considered too much even for a 1964 audience.

      7. Sean Gruber Says:

        Breaking:

        A white man, 22 years old, shot Congresswoman Giffords (D-Arizona) in the head today. Shot alongside her: a federal judge. The judge died.

        The relevance to us, I guess, is this: is she a friend of our people? Here’s from Wikipedia:

        “In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation that would have increased the cap on the H-1B visa from 65,000 per year to 130,000 per year. If that was not sufficient, according to her legislation, the cap would have been increased to 180,000 per year.The bill would have allowed, at most, 50% of employees at any given company with at least 50 employees to be H-1B guest workers. A large number of H-1B visas are used by outsourcing companies, as five of the top ten users of the visa are regularly outsourcing corporations. Giffords claimed the bill would help high-tech companies in southern Arizona, some of which rely on H1-B employees.”

        “She has a D+ rating from the NRA”

        What kind of guy is the shooter? Media stories claim he had a website where he posted misspelled harangues about the Federal Reserve. I wonder if this claim is true, and what in the world Giffords has to do (directly) with the Fed Reserve. Dunno. Or is the claim a red herring? (The website cannot be accessed.) It is likely that, although we can hypothesize some plausible motives for the shooting, we will never know/be told for sure.

      8. Sean Gruber Says:

        Didn’t take long.

        The bought media are blaming the shooting on “The Tea Party.”

        Here
        http://tinyurl.com/34wvplb

        VNN Forum has a pretty good discussion thread.

      9. Tim McGreen Says:

        I might have praised the shooter for his actions, except for the fact that he also killed a 9 year-old White girl. For that he should be executed.

      10. CW-2 Says:

        Yesterday evening I dug out an old VHS recording of Zulu and had another look. A couple of interesting points; the nutjob missionary and his daughter are Swedish, also he can’t face the reality of the situation gets drunk and starts mouthing all that stuff from the Old Testament that jews use to confuse White people. Unnerved by all this bibical ranting a young soldier asks the colour sergeant, ‘Why us?’, he replies. ‘Because we’re ‘ere lad, there’s nobody else.’
        Our situation exactly. A burden has been placed on our shoulders, we didn’t ask for it, but let’s rise manfully to the challenge.

      11. van helsing Says:

        the kid smoked pot among other things, apoparently threatened a lot of people, and unless i miss my guess, posted (since deleted) that giffords was “dead to me” after she refused to vote for pelosi again as speaker of the house.

        and had a skull shrine…

        not sure the left can spin him into anything useful to their movement (ie, anyone on the right)

      12. The Red Skull Says:

        This was a Great movie!–And one of the more historically accurate.It should be watched by all Aware Whites as how our forefathers handled out of control negro mobs.Steady,cool,repeated firings by ranks does wonders.Just imagine the carnage when its thousands of screaming negroes trying to get at you(they are hungry brillo-heads) across the trenches and barbed wire that mark your perimeter.ZULU gives you a taste of that!

      13. The Red Skull Says:

        Yes,as a poster above noted: the main message Whites should take from the film is “DON’T GIVE UP!”–no matter the odds–fight with honor and courage to the end!–all kidding aside.

      14. Gerald E. P. Morris Says:

        Yes, a superb movie! I rate the Battle at Rorke’s Drift right up with Thermopylae and the Alamo as exemplars of decisive battles pitting swarms of darkies and wogs against a minority of brave Aryan heroes willing to fight to their last breath for the Summum Bonum of their Folk! Such battles have a MORALLY decisive value that transcends the tactical and even operations level strategic value of the antagonists and the turf they fight over. This movie can’t be remade by the jews and their whores in Hollywood today. For example, their attempt at portraying Thermopylae was totally flat by comparison, nevermind the cartoon special effects.

      15. Tim McGreen Says:

        Michael Caine is a great actor and all, but I think he’s married to an Oriental.

      16. Howdy Doody Says:

        rr Says:

        8 January, 2011 at 12:24 pm

        Same old shit happened over here. Union Negro soldiers suffered terrible slaughter at Fort pillow and Brices Crossroads, compliments of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Union Negro soldiers assaulting Fort Wagner suffered even greater carnage, compliments of South Carolina volunteers. Hollywood called it GLORY.

        2 0

        Un-Quote

        Oh yeah, wonderful post !

        The Glory HOLE movie was praised by N.P.R. when I driving home one, just as I turned the radio the nasal Whine started about this Gloryful story, and the ending.

      17. Howdy Doody Says:

        It is possible to argue that the biggest threat to General Sherman’s advance towards Atlanta in 1864 did not come from General Joseph Johnston’s Confederate army directly in front of him, but from the swarms of cavalry that threatened his supply lines back to Chattanooga and through Tennessee to Union territory.

        One of the most effective of those cavalry forces was the one led by Nathan Bedford Forrest. In March and April this daring cavalry commander had led a raid through western Tennessee that actually reached as far north as Kentucky, before returning to the south. On their way south, Forrest’s men captured Fort Pillow (12 April 1864), massacring many of the black soldiers in the garrison after they had surrendered.

        Forrest’s raid worried Sherman. His response was to order the commander at Memphis to detach a suitable force of cavalry to catch and defeat Forrest. That force, of 8,000 men, left Memphis on 1 June. It outnumbered Forrest’s 3,000 men by nearly three to one. The Union force was commanded by General Samuel D. Sturgis, fresh from failing to intercept Forrest after the Fort Pillow massacre.

        On 10 June Sturgis’s force was marching south, when at Brice’s Crossroad its advance guard found the first signs of Forrest’s men. The road at the crossroads showed signs of recent use by a large force of horsemen, while the fences in a large open space around the crossroads had been removed, possibly in order to prepare for a cavalry battle. The Union cavalry formed up in a line across the open space, just in time to repel Forrest’s first attack.

        While this was going in, the Union infantry was five miles to the north, making slow progress over poor roads. The Union cavalry commander, General B. H. Grierson, sent back repeated requests for infantry support. Sturgis responded by ordering his men on a forced march towards the fighting, and then set off to join the cavalry.

        Just as Sturgis arrived, Forrest launched a second attack. This time the Union cavalry was forced back, forming a second line in a narrower part of the clearing. The road here was almost a causeway, crossing over swampy ground. When the infantry finally arrived, at about two in the afternoon, they took over this line, replacing the cavalry, who now formed a reserve.

        This new line was dangerously exposed to flanking attacks. Neither left nor right flank was adequately protected. Forrest saw this, and spent the next three hours attempting to turn both flanks. Finally, at about five in the evening, he succeeded. In a classic double envelopment, Forrest’s cavalry got around both flanks of the Union force. The line crumbled, then broke. This was one of the worst routs suffered by Union forces in the west. By the next morning some of the retreating troops had already reached Ripley, 24 miles from the battlefield. It proved impossible to properly stop the retreat until the defeated men had returned to the relative safety of Memphis.

        Forrest captured the entire Union wagon train, 14 artillery guns, 52 officers and 1,571 men as well as inflicting over 500 casualties. This was his most impressive victory, and one of the worst Union defeats in the west. However, Forrest’s success was short lived. A second Union expedition was soon sent out against him, defeating him just over one month later at Tupelo (14 July 1864).

      Leave a Reply

      You may use the following HTML tags in your comments.

      <a abbr acronym b blockquote cite code del em i q strike strong>