- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 26,396
- Real Name
- Josh Steinberg
I just picked up Zulu for $10 in the current TT sale. I've never seen the movie before but I've been curious for a while and it seemed like the right time. Looking forward to it!
I just picked up Zulu for $10 in the current TT sale. I've never seen the movie before but I've been curious for a while and it seemed like the right time. Looking forward to it!
I just picked up Zulu for $10 in the current TT sale. I've never seen the movie before but I've been curious for a while and it seemed like the right time. Looking forward to it!
I just picked up Zulu for $10 in the current TT sale. I've never seen the movie before but I've been curious for a while and it seemed like the right time. Looking forward to it!
I am in the exact same boat...and did the exact same thing.
Reggie W: Is Waterloo currently available in any decent transfers? I'd love to see that one.
I guess the drawback for me is that since I grew up watching films that did not feature gigantic swathes of CGI, and so all the CGI stuff tends to look ridiculous to me, you can tell the dynamics of what is happening have nothing to do with how things move or look in real life, and so films made with CGI just look like video games or cartoons to me. Which honestly leaves me generally feeling pretty ambivalent to what is going on. But that's my problem I guess.
The best version of Waterloo is a Russian import...
View attachment 36841
It is NTSC and region 0 so it will play fine in your US region A player. Expect to pay about $20.00 to $30.00 for this but it is by far the best looking picture. The other discs of this available do not even come close. You can shop around, it is available on Amazon so it is not hard to get but you are going to pay a bit more for it. As far as I know this film is difficult for anybody that would want to do a blu-ray of it to get hold of elements to do so. So, this DVD is probably the only way to see this film in a decent version.
If you want it I would buy this disc of it. I love the film so I picked up a few versions of it...this Russian disc is easily the best option.
Well, I would say you guys, Josh and Mike, are in for a hell of a ride. Zulu is a pretty intense bit of filmmaking and basically one giant battle. Beautifully directed and shot by Cy Endfield and Stephen Dade respectively and featuring a career performance from Stanley Baker it is a rip roaring NO CGI cast of thousands glorious picture about the Siege of Rorke's Drift that shows off everything movies used to be.
If you really love it then you can check out Zulu Dawn, a prequel made several years after this film (it's not as good), that depicts the events that led up to what we see in the film Zulu.
Personally, I am a huge fan of this kind of filmmaking and this film is a great example of how something like this was once filmed...in real place, with real people, and where you know you are really looking at real action sequences that were incredibly thought out and planned. So, not done with ten people standing in front of a green screen in a giant warehouse. So you really feel like you are there which to me heightens the intensity of the film.
I miss this kind of thing and we know they won't be making films like this ever again. To me blu-ray was made to bring this kind of film back to life in our home theaters. These huge battle films of the past where they really had to go to all the trouble of actually making it happen and did not just shoot the main characters and then have some guys with a computer add everything in later are truly amazing to look at.
Another one that I think was dumped on at the time because audiences had had it with historical epics at that point is Waterloo directed by Sergei Bondarchuk where he amazingly recreates the battle of Waterloo and we get to see it from all kinds of angles and even aerial views that spectacularly show off the British battle strategy (forming their squares) and gives you a great look at mistakes made that cost Napoleon a battle he had just about won.
For my money you can't beat these kind of films because as you watch them you're thinking "Wow, all that is really happening!" which causes me to end up much more invested in what is taking place.
I guess the drawback for me is that since I grew up watching films that did not feature gigantic swathes of CGI, and so all the CGI stuff tends to look ridiculous to me, you can tell the dynamics of what is happening have nothing to do with how things move or look in real life, and so films made with CGI just look like video games or cartoons to me. Which honestly leaves me generally feeling pretty ambivalent to what is going on. But that's my problem I guess.
I hope you guys enjoy the film and it proves to be ten bucks well spent.
That movie was really impressive to look at - saw it in a vintage 70mm BlowUp print some years ago.
Well, I would say you guys, Josh and Mike, are in for a hell of a ride. Zulu is a pretty intense bit of filmmaking and basically one giant battle. Beautifully directed and shot by Cy Endfield and Stephen Dade respectively and featuring a career performance from Stanley Baker it is a rip roaring NO CGI cast of thousands glorious picture about the Siege of Rorke's Drift that shows off everything movies used to be.
If you really love it then you can check out Zulu Dawn, a prequel made several years after this film (it's not as good), that depicts the events that led up to what we see in the film Zulu.
Personally, I am a huge fan of this kind of filmmaking and this film is a great example of how something like this was once filmed...in real place, with real people, and where you know you are really looking at real action sequences that were incredibly thought out and planned. So, not done with ten people standing in front of a green screen in a giant warehouse. So you really feel like you are there which to me heightens the intensity of the film.
I miss this kind of thing and we know they won't be making films like this ever again. To me blu-ray was made to bring this kind of film back to life in our home theaters. These huge battle films of the past where they really had to go to all the trouble of actually making it happen and did not just shoot the main characters and then have some guys with a computer add everything in later are truly amazing to look at.
Another one that I think was dumped on at the time because audiences had had it with historical epics at that point is Waterloo directed by Sergei Bondarchuk where he amazingly recreates the battle of Waterloo and we get to see it from all kinds of angles and even aerial views that spectacularly show off the British battle strategy (forming their squares) and gives you a great look at mistakes made that cost Napoleon a battle he had just about won.
For my money you can't beat these kind of films because as you watch them you're thinking "Wow, all that is really happening!" which causes me to end up much more invested in what is taking place.
I guess the drawback for me is that since I grew up watching films that did not feature gigantic swathes of CGI, and so all the CGI stuff tends to look ridiculous to me, you can tell the dynamics of what is happening have nothing to do with how things move or look in real life, and so films made with CGI just look like video games or cartoons to me. Which honestly leaves me generally feeling pretty ambivalent to what is going on. But that's my problem I guess.
I hope you guys enjoy the film and it proves to be ten bucks well spent.
CG is just a tool and like any cinematic tool, it can be tastefully used and it can be overused. I'd be shocked if every movie nominated for an Oscar for many years didn't use CG to some degree.You are not the only one who detests CGI.It ruins almost every movie. Digital and CGI are the scourge of decent filmmaking to-day. I only went to the cinema once last year for that reason.
CG is just a tool and like any cinematic tool, it can be tastefully used and it can be overused. I'd be shocked if every movie nominated for an Oscar for many years didn't use CG to some degree.
I have never had an opportunity to see Waterloo on the big screen. I would leap at that chance if it ever happened. I would love to see this film get a blu-ray release because it is one of those films that would just be amazing on blu-ray. Sadly, I guess any film where the elements are in the hands of a Russian entity involves a lot of red tape (I guess pun intended there) and negotiation to even get close to being allowed to touch it and with a film like this that flopped at the box office way back in 1970 nobody is interested in going to the trouble. I've heard after many years Tarkovsky's Stalker has finally been made available and Criterion is actually going to get to release it on a new blu-ray from a new scan of the film.
I'm not sure many people appreciate how incredible Bondarchuk's recreation of the Battle of Waterloo is. I mean when we see the aerial shots of the battlefield with the battle raging...my god we are seeing the entire battle taking place. That's as close as we will ever get to actually being there and it really feels like you are there. I know that people complained at the time about Steiger's performance as Napoleon but I actually like it. He is, as always, very intense and throwing himself totally into it but I think that works. I mean Kubrick was actually thinking of casting Jack Nicholson to play Napoleon and as much as I love Jack...well...that just seems the wrong choice and I think Steiger was much better for the part. I mean when I picture Napoleon I think of him as crazily driven and intense and that's how Steiger plays him.
Plus as well as just being worth rescuing to blu-ray for the recreation of the Battle of Waterloo alone the film does have some historical significance as well as it was the film that scuppered Kubrick's Napoleon film because investors in Kubrick's film were scared off by Waterloo flopping at the box office. This also made Kubrick even more paranoid and secretive about projects he was developing for fear that somebody else that worked faster than him beating him to the screen with a version of whatever topic he was working on. So, in terms of film history Waterloo has significance as well. Seems though that nobody wants to go to the trouble and probably expense of chasing this one down and I guess Tarkovsky is more familiar to people around the world than Bondarchuk is. It's a shame because Waterloo and as Ed mentions above War and Peace were massive undertakings to make and it is all up there on the screen in ways we will never see again.
Oh well, it's a common lament here that we don't have this film or that so I know I'm just whining at this point.