Reviews (193)

The Ultimate Struggle for Survival Under Siege
The story begins with the Zulu army fresh from their stunning massacre of 1300 British soldiers at Isandhlwana. This force of over 5000 seasoned warriors then turns their attention to a small outpost called Rorke's drift. Only one hundred men, many sick and some malingerers man this camp in the middle of South African wilderness. Two lieutenants, one, engineer, and one the son of an English aristocrat are in command. These young officers are not battle tested but must quickly prepare for the fight of their lives. Fortunately, they are supported by efforts of the quintessential sergeant major that hardly breaks a sweat as he fights the fierce adversaries while maintaining proper British manners and discipline. By the use of military tactics and shear resolve, the two officers galvanize their small force against nearly insurmountable odds. This film is full of breathtaking sequences, exciting heroics and slackers becoming heroes. A scene where the Zulus attack the hospital is particularly brimming with action. Zulu also has its fair share of honor and humanity. Stanley Baker and Michael Caine turn in fine performances as the commanders of Rorke's Drift. Cy Endfield directs one of the most exciting movies ever made about the tenacity of the British soldier.

Outstanding re-telling of the 1879 battle at Rorke's Drift
In January, 1879, a column of British soldiers comprised primarily of the 24th Regiment of Foot, South Wales Borderers, was wiped out at the base of the mountain, Isandhlwana, in Natal, South Africa. A large contingent of 4,000 Zulu warriors then moved on to the undermanned expedition base at Rorke's Drift. This movie tells the incredible true story of the subsequent battle, and of the victory of the 90 some British soldiers, many of them sick, who held their post in the face of overwhelming odds. See Donald Morris' definitive book, _The Washing of the Spears_, against which this film account compares most favorably.

This neglected classic was filmed at a time when it was still just possible to associate the word "glory" with military victory-- without a sneer. The makers of the film avoid preaching and just let the battle tell the tale of the men of both sides. The British soldiers are not the "good guys" nor are the Zulus "bad guys," and the lone derogatory comment about the fighting ability of the Zulus is instantly rebuffed by a tough Boer cavalryman who says, "And just who do you think is coming to wipe out your little garrison, the Grenadier Guards?" This is a soldier's story about a soldier's fight.

Did the Welsh really sing "Men of Harlach" as they manned their mealie-bag barricades?

Did the Zulus really render a warrior's salute as they broke off the action on the second day of the battle?

It doesn't matter. The film is accurate in the historical basics that really count.

Beautifully filmed on location, with an outstanding, stirring score by John Barry, this film features solid but appropriately understated performances by Stanley Baker, Michael Caine, and Jack Hawkins.

I hesitate to mention the hideous, politically correct pre-quel, _Zulu Dawn_ which was released almost 25 years after _Zulu_, but any viewer who has the unhappy experience of seeing _Zulu Dawn_ should not be put off from seeing _Zulu_, which shines in comparison.

Whether one is interested in military history or a "movie for men who like movies," _Zulu_ is a worthy addition to a film library. From first to last, it is a compelling, superior film.

So where's Zulu Dawn?
Trying to find this movie and it's only available in Region 2. What gives?

Is it coming to the US soon?

Basically an Anti-War Movie
Zulu is basically more of an antiwar movie than an action adventure flick. War is not glamorized in Zulu and it is shown in all its horrific repulsiveness. Nor for that matter are there any heroes in Zulu for nobody acts heroically. The officers and soldiers know that its likely that they will die defending their isolated frontier outpost against the Zulu hordes and they are bitterly resentful of that fact.

This makes Zulu an original and different movie. However, the quality of the acting is generally low, although Michael Caine delivers a splendid performance. The script, direction and special effects are also deficient. Zulu was made on a low budget and it shows.

Zulu is an example of how a great idea does not necessarlily result in a great movie.

Girls can love this movie too!
I have always enjoyed this movie since I was a little girl. At 27 I love it even more. The gentleman behavior of the English, the breathtaking battle sequences and the fantastic score are spectacular. I have my favorite characters that just send shivers up my back and tears to my eyes at times for their heroism. If you don't take my word for how great this movie is you can refer to Lord of the Rings Two Towers extras. Peter Jackson was inspired by a few of the scenes from Zulu for the beginning of the battle at Helm's Deep. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Brilliant, dark satire on the darkest of subjects.
Richard Lester created in "How I Won the War" a film that simply cannot be categorized.

Symbolism abounds in the film, and in alternating instances, its overtness and its subtlety can prove confusing. For this reason, the film needs to be viewed more than once.

The blatant attack on the military mindset is brilliantly executed. In swift strokes he makes a mockery of military officers and warmongers; one scene in particular has two British officers exchanging bubble gum cards of war scenes, with one insisting in a haughty accent "I want school bombing ... I do."

Michael Crawford and John Lennon are joined by an excellent supporting cast, including Victor Spinetti the brilliant (but unfortunately "late") Leo McKern. Crawford plays the role with just the right amount of smarminess, egoism and overt stupidity that it calls for. Lennon and McKern's innocence causes the closing segment to be doubly powerful.

Overall ... a fine film worth seeing, especially for any fans of social commentary.

Not Chuffed, Mate
Richard Lester has directed great movies, and Three Musketeers (Michael York) is on my ten favorite action movie list. "How I Won the War" is not one of his best.

The problem with the movie is it is English humor with a capital "E." The movies consists of a melange of British Butlin's holiday camp farce and insider public school jokes shot in rapid fire. The lead character is an irritatingly eager chipmunk of an officer who is impossible to connect with. I didn't like him and quickly wished to see him capped by the equally incompetent Germans. The movie would have definitely fed George Patton's biased stereotype of British officers as fawning twits.

Oh, and John Lennon? He doesn't occupy much of this film, and when he speaks, it's rapid-fire one line blitzkreig Liverpudlian. Had trouble understanding "Magical Mystery Tour?" This will really be a stumper.

A historical artifact, only, if harmless.

Surrealistic Anti-War Movie
HOW I WON THE WAR was filmed in Spain in late 1966. The movie features John Lennon and Michael Crawford of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA fame. Richard Lester is the director. The movie is a surrealistic anti-war movie.

The surrealism will turn off many viewers. There is no standard plot structure. This movie can almost be seen as experimental and avante-garde. These qualities drew Lennon to the project. But they are bound to draw viewers away.

HOW I WON THE WAR is akin to REVOLUTION 9 on THE WHITE ALBUM or WHAT'S THE NEW MARY JANE from ANTHOLOGY 3. This movie is cutting edge and pushes the envelope. It is unconventional and approaches psychedelia. Not surprisingly, Lennon composed STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER while making this movie.

The movie suffers from not having songs or compositions by Lennon on the soundtrack. Both Lennon and Crawford are singers, but there are no songs in the movie. John Lennon's character Gripweed is a supporting character in the movie.

The movie, moreover, has an anti-war theme by showing the absurdity, banality, and hollowness of all war. There is no good war. The movie shows how "winning" a war really occurs. The movie, thus, lacks a feelgood perspective. It leaves the viewer disgusted with war by showing that war is not glorious and noble, but the opposite.

Viewers should realize that this movie is surrealistic and experimental. In other words, it is not a commercial movie. It is a satirical look at war. It is a unique movie unlike any other Beatles movie. It is closest to MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR in that it is not a traditional movie. It is a very different war movie. Obviously such a surrealistic movie will not appeal to many. Nevertheless, it is a unique movie experience, not the usual formula movie.

Don't expect to be laughing the whole movie
First off, don't expect a fun M*A*S*H or Hard Day's Night romp. this is a dark movie, and it's supposed to be. but you can't judge it because you want to see a lighthearted Lennon. it's dark and sad and very well filmed. as a war movie, this is one of the best (in my opinion). the last scene with lennon is almost otherworldly, guaranteed to depress. True, the cover is really rather irritating, lennon is only on for a bit. But the cast is top-notch, the writing crisp, and the overall feeling one of amazement. which is, after all, the point of a movie to begin with.

Beatles fans be forewarned
If you're seeking this movie out as a Beatles fan there are a few things you ought to know. First of all, despite John Lennon's handsome mug being prominately featured on the cover of this videotape, he only features in about 15 minutes of this film. (It is NOT how John Lennon's character Gripweed won the war - as the artwork on this tape might lead you to believe - but rather how Michael Crawford's character won the war). Secondly, John does not have much of an opportunity to act silly when he IS featured on camera so if you are expecting another performance like "A Hard Days Night" you will be disappointed. Thirdly, John's last scene in this movie is somewhat uncomfortable to watch given the tragic way in which he died (John's character is mortally wounded in combat and he addresses the camera one final time lying dazed and bleeding). Some of the British humor and the accents in particular are hard to interpret but not any more so than "A Hard Days Night" or "Help". Being that it's a Richard Lester film some of the same actors seen in "Help!" are featured here but this is by no means a vehicle for Lennon's acting career. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

A gripping plot is what makes this movie so endearing!
There really are no holes in this entangling story of an American in London, as I found myself trying to find faults within such a complex, even farfetched plot. But that was my own cynicism at work, because it really is a very engrossing movie. It is sentimental and serious at the same time, with Stone's Casey Cantrell trying to piece together her mother's past, bumping into some mysterious questions and a passionate love along the way. This is good romantic entertainment -- not much on the drama side. It is interesting and perhaps even tiresome to see a younger and less experienced Sharon Stone play the role of a young, tentative, yet strong-willed daughter, instead of the vixenish, domineering roles she is known for. Overall, if you can get past reliving 80's fashion (Stone's party dress is a dilly) and standard romance cliches (a whirlwind courtship), this is the quintessential movie for romance-junkies.

tears in the rain
I just watched this movie on the Romance Channel and immediately came to amazon.com to buy 2 copies. One for me and one for my sister who just loves this kind of thing. I loved it!

Tears in the rain
I think that it is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I am trying to buy the VHS, but the price ...is just too much. I also would like to find the music, it stayed with me for days. I think the bonbing scene very realistic, went through them in Coventry.

Tears in the Rain
"Tears in the Rain" is an old fashioned kind of romance movie. If it were filmed in black and white, I would think that it was made at least 50 years ago. It is a beautiful story of two people in love. They encounter unforseen troubles but triumph in spite of it all. It is mysterious enough to keep the audience guessing until the very end. The characters are quite believable and the acting is first rate. Sharon Stone gives a marvelous performance in what must be one of her earliest roles. The story is told in part with flashbacks so the viewer should be advised to pay attention to avoid confusion. I have watched this movie several times and it always leaves me teary-eyed. We should all be as lucky as Michael and Casey.

romantic
Good Movie with storyline that keeps you bound. My husband is not very enthusiastic for teary, romantic movies, but after this one, we have seen many together. Sharon Stone is a brilliant actress and she fit her role well. ... Read more

Description

Michael Redgrave (The Browning Version, 1951) stars in this psychological thriller about an alcoholic who has one day to save his son from the gallows.Leo McKern plays a demented millionaire who would hide the truth at any cost.Moody cinematography from Freddie Francis (Cape Fear, 1962) creates an atmosphere thick with panic. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Gripping British Thriller
"Time Without Pity", a tense British film noir, was directed by Joseph Losey, and released theatrically in 1957. An unsuccessful British author (Michael Redgrave) returns to England from Canada in a last-ditch effort to save his son from the gallows. His son's girlfriend was murdered. The son was arrested, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. He will be hanged within 24 hours, unless new evidence can be found to put the guilty verdict in doubt. Racing against time, Mr. Redgrave confronts various people connected to his son, in a desperate attempt to find the truth before his son is executed. His efforts are complicated by his own battle with alcoholism, and the disdain of the son he is trying to save.

While the whole cast is strong, Michael Redgrave gives a shattering performance that you will not forget. Leo McKern is also powerful as a sleazy auto dealer who--like other characters in this film--knows a lot more than he is willing to divulge. A young Joan Plowright is cast as a showgirl, and you will also see a "pre-Miss Moneypenny" Lois Maxwell as McKern's glamourous secretary. Peter Cushing is appropriately stoic as the lawyer who unsuccessfully defended the son.

The DVD exhibits a decent B & W picture--I found that I had to adjust the sound level a couple of times.

Whether you like old-fashioned thrillers, classic British cinema or the bravura performance of a great actor, "Time Without Pity" deserves your attention. Recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Another Mediocre Sequel?
While no where near as good as "A Woman of Substance" it is still worth watching. If you fell in love with Emma Harte how can you not watch the second part of the story? The best character of the movie is of course Jenny Seagrove.I'd love that they cast er as the star in this one too. Why have I never seen her star in another movie? She is just excellent as in "Substance." Stephen Collins is a great lead but the chemistry is pretty low between them. The worst part of the entire story is Paula marrying a Fairley? I honestly couldnt stomach that one after seeing them try to ruin Emma a generation before. The best part? Emma & Blackey O"Neill FINALLY declare their love.

Full Of Strength & Full Of Drama
Hold the Dream is a second part of a series. It is based on a family which came from poor to powerful. The Series is one of the best I've seen. It will build self esteem and make you aware of others who have to struggle each day. It will help you to learn to endure.

The Great Saga Continues - Hold the Dream
As with "A Woman of Substance" this movie carries on with Emma Harte's granddaughter Paula who is charged to hold Emma's dream. True to her previous movie this story stuck very close to the book. I love this story and I can't wait to watch the third one "To Be The Best". Watch and love! ... Read more