26 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Terrible, June 20, 2005
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Seqeul You Don't Need (Except Henry Cele's Shaka Zulu), August 11, 2005
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A Disappointment, March 21, 2007
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
