Customer Reviews

Shaka Zulu - Last Great Warrior

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

As a sequel to a great miniseries this is a disaster. As a previous reviewer notes: How can this be a sequel if Shaka dies at the end of the original series. And while the series takes its liberties with history, this sequel is a travesty that borders on the bizarre. Shaka's capture by slavers was just one of a series of non-sensical historical b.s. This DVD is practically unwatchable....we finally had to turn it off. I could go on but life is too short. The only saving grace is that Henry Cele is one magnetic actor.

My review refers to the short version (about 90 mins) of the mini-series which, I believe, must have been originally much longer than the present one. Whatever merit the original version must have, I confess that I don't know. I watched this shorter one as stand-alone piece, and as such, the film is barely watchable.

This is said to be the sequel to the 1986 Mini-series, but let's forget about it. All I can say is that Shaka Zulu is played by same actor Henry Cele, who is the only reason to watch this film. While Shaka Zulu, the mighty king of Africa is talking about the future of the land with Captain Farewell (James Fox, brother to Edward Fox who was in the 1986 version), an English slaver Mungo (wow! it's David Hasselhoff!!) heads for the coast of Africa, with Captain's daughter Kathleen (Karen Allen).

These two sets of characters meet in a most incredible, and unconvincing way. Shaka Zulu is captured and brought to Mungo's ship, on which you see bad things done to the slaves -- including one assaulted girl -- and somehow, well, just somehow, Kathleen falls in love with Mungo. And ... should I continue?

The film is curious mixture of convincing locations (in Morocco) and unconvincing plot. If the Michael Caine's 'Zulu' was conventional, it knew what it was doing with full of actions. In here, you don't have many actions, and if we have one, it is marred by the contrived stort.

The only thing I find good about the film is Henry Cele's dignified portrait of Shaka Zulu. Sorry, but that's the truth.

I really enjoyed the Shaka Zulu miniseries which featured this same cast. For that reason I was expecting more of the same. I got the same cast but I did not get the same enjoyment. This one was not worth much.

The story is of the furthering encroachment by the English and the Boers into the Zulu kingdom. Shaka is not a king to be trifled with and is in many way "primitive" but that does not keep him from sophisticated thinking as well. He is portrayed as a great leader of his people who can be violent but who is also willing and indeed eager to learn new things. So much they got right.

A great part of this story tells of Shaka being betrayed and captured by slavers. He vows vengeance but tempers that vengeance because of the example of an Englishwoman who shows him kindness. This part of the story is very simplistic and is dramatically flat. So too is most of the rest of the story. The one good acting job in this sequel is that of the title role. He tries to portray the complexity of the character. The rest are one dimensional.

Why didn't they have Shaka fighting the Spartans at Thermopylae?

Such a scene would have been more consistant with any truth than this absurd account.

The trouble is that mythical accounts such as this become part of "real history" seamlessly due to the fact that no one reads anymore.

Shaka (Chaka) was an important man; he was not a noble man. Quite the opposite - he was a very successful mass murderer who, had he been white, would have been properly villified. He never fought any white people and had contact with only a few white MEN whose real characters have been entirely fictionalized in this absurd account.

Shaka had no contact with Muslims or with slave traders (featuring Southern US accents no less).

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of this wretched movie is its subliminal undertone of anti-American messages. Americans had nothing to do with the history of Natal or Zululand. Why then the American accent for "Wild Coast Slavers" who never existed anyway?

The Zulus eventually (long after Shaka's brother Dingane had murdered him) had their troubles with the whites but they were either British or Dutch Boers; not Americans. It also must be stated that a state of continual tribal warfare existed in Southern Africa in the early 19th century.

If you want fantasy I suggest you buy star wars, not this totally made up "history". No doubt this will be introduced into our decaying government school system as part of "black history" ughhh!

Knowing nothing about the real Shaka Zulu I enjoyed this film. The photography is beautiful and the characters are interesting and the issues they confront are interesting. It does indeed have some soft spots, however.

From the start it seemed obvious that this could not possibly be history, so I just took it as a story, and I think this was the right thing to do and that is why I could enjoy it despite the soft spots and various unbelievable happenings.

Then I watched the director's commentary, which is really one of the better ones I have seen.

He made it clear that this was not history and was only a sequel to his TV mini-series in the sense that it was made later. It is in fact simply a thought experiment in "what if" and was intended to stimulate thinking about race relations and their sad history in Africa and elsewhere in the world. In that sense it was like a lot of science fiction, not intended to be taken seriously in any academic sense, but intended to explore ideas. The director was very passionate about what he was trying to do with this film and his views and this film expression of his views are well worth spending some time with.

Folks who are in the market for beautiful and thoughtful films will miss something if they are put off by the comments that the plot is unbelievable and a-historical. Also, try to overlook the soft spots here and there in acting. Even the treatment of the slaves on the ship is unrealistically mild compared to depictions in DVDs such as the Middle Passage. But Shaka Zula makes the point well enough.

What is real historically is that the practice of slavery was (and is) inhuman, and that it did have multicultural dimensions in Africa.

It may also be interesting to keep in mind that in too many parts of the world the laws against slavery are not enforced, and slavery does still exist (easily found with google).

Shaka Zulu was a 5 part miniseries (each episode was 2 hours less commercials or about 8 and 1/2 hours long). A well done abridged version was out in video at about 5 and 1/2 hours many years ago.

This new version is 94 minutes. Don't buy it. Urge stores to throw it out, since it does not advertise the fact that it has cut 5/6 of the series, which was excellently acted and was about the most grand tv production ever made.

It's hard to believe that grown-up people did this.
Complete drivel from beginning to end. Avoid this dreadful mishmash. It's not even a good "bad" movie.

It does no service to history. It's pleasure to see such fine actors at work esp. Henry Cele. They deserve a much better vehicle for their talents.

This movie is horrible. Don't buy it. I am lucky to have looked at a friend's copy. It insults the memory of the great Shaka Zulu. It must have been painful for Celes to act in this silly movie
which makes no historical sense.

It must have been completly exhausting for Henry Cele to carry this movie for an hour and a half. You rarely see such true stage presence. It's too bad it was wasted in this movie. It gave a few shining monments of social criticism on the English colonial system and slave trade, but spent the rest of the time mooning over the weak romantic subplot.

I had to do some research for a summer class on a battle/war/leader via film and the Zulu nation has always intrigued me. The only film I could find in my area was this one, unfortunately. Good thing I was able to find several good books because this movie - cut and pasted from a recent series - did not do Shaka, or the Zulu nation justice. More or less it was a movie about David Hasselhoff and a romantic interest. Their portrayal of Shaka was incorrect and the story was really "Hollywood." Several of the books I checked out matched up - this movie did not. If you want to watch a fantasy story about Shaka, look no further. I'm off to find something more factual. If your interested in this topic and want to read about it - look up The Washing of the Spears by Donald Morris, or The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation by John Laband.