A Few Words About A few words about...™ Khartoum & Zulu -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[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!

 

[Mike Frezon]

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.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We'll have to compare notes!

 

[cinemiracle]

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!

ZULU is one of the greatest classics of the British screen. An unforgettable masterpiece. I saw it originally in 70mm.

 

[DavidJ]

I'm planning to do the same.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

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 first saw it in a theater in 1964, and I was on the edge of my seat for nearly the entire film. I still watch it every few years - it is that good.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I am in the exact same boat...and did the exact same thing.

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.

 

[skylark68]

Zulu is a great film, I picked it up from TT awhile back before the current sales. It's money worth spent though as it's one of the all time best British colonial war films. I've had it in various iterations none of which even come close to the current TT blu ray. It truly looks beautiful. I recommend Khartoum as well even with Olivier's acting in the film (it's actually not that hammy). Heston more than makes up for it and it's a great adventure tale.

Reggie W: Is Waterloo currently available in any decent transfers? I'd love to see that one.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Reggie W: Is Waterloo currently available in any decent transfers? I'd love to see that one.

The best version of Waterloo is a Russian import...

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.

 

[JoeDoakes]

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 big problem with CGI is the lack of imagination of those who employ it. Although some of the distance views of battles in The Lord of the Rings films can't compare to Waterloo, I thought the CGI was excellent and really contributed to the story. The reason is, I think, that the CGI artists were able to harness Tolkien's descriptions and the countless illustrations of the novel to direct the CGI. In most cases, those producing the CGI don't have that and, as studios think that audiences want impressive action sequences, a lot of CGI winds up looking the same. I mean, how many giant, shape changing, dissolving bad guys have we seen over the past fifteen years? There's a similar problem with a lot of combat scenes that are too long, overwrought, filled with pointless kung fuery, poorly choreographed, and to me, boring. One film that I actually liked, Doctor Strange, suffered from both of these maladies. Sometimes, you have tot take the chaff if you want the wheat.

 

[OliverK]

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.

That movie was really impressive to look at - saw it in a vintage 70mm BlowUp print some years ago.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

If any film deserves the blu-ray treatment, it would certainly be Waterloo. The complete Bondarchuk War and Peace is at top of my most wanted list, as well. I wonder why Ruscico hasn't dipped into the blu-ray market yet. I have so many of their Russian classics on DVD, all with English subtitles.

 

[cinemiracle]

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.

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.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That movie was really impressive to look at - saw it in a vintage 70mm BlowUp print some years ago.

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.

 

[RMajidi]

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.

Agreed about the greatness of Zulu and the no-CGI bit. But that's not to say that there was no sleight-of-hand or visual trickery involved.

Spoiler

I recall that the cast of thousands was not actually so, and was simulated by the clever reuse of the same Zulus, crowned by a panel segment of levitating artificial Zulus on the hilltop to make up the numbers. Beats CGI for me any day.

A rousing and magnificent film, including wonderful performances by all, especially Michael Caine and Stanley Baker... with Nigel Green just about stealing the film for me.

...and then there's that John Barry theme!

 

[TravisR]

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.

 

[RMajidi]

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 think you're right, Travis. However, the artful deception, misdirection and mechanical wizardry that was the bedrock of my first-love pastime of magical conjuring is what I love so much about the 'tools' and effects that marked pre-CGI film illusion.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the technical excellence of CGI software and the skills and talents of its practitioners. However, there's a disconnect there for me.

Just the other day, I watched my WAC Blu of the astonishing Bad Day at Black Rock and kept rewinding the molotov cocktail scene over and over again trying to understand how they staged it so perfectly. As with all great magical illusions, I'd imagine that it was probably simple and elegant in conception, but unbelievable in the delivered rendition. Such wonderment is lacking for me in modern films.

 

[Everett S.]

Also movie magic should be left less seen and explained as extras on Blu-Rays and tv shows. I dont try and tear apart what most already know is not real,it spoils the reason u watch in the first place!

 

[cinemiracle]

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.

I saw WATERLOO in 70mm when it was first released. It was a much anticipated film before it's release. I was bored to death with the film. It was a flop and the reviews were bad from what I remember.