Zulu was a much anticipated film for the Blu Ray format and tells the story of how 139 British soldiers defended their outpost against over 4000 Zulu warriors at Rorkes Drift in 1879.
Zulu was made in 1964 and filmed in South Africa during the days of apartheid as well as Twickenham studios in England, it was filmed about 60 miles from the real Rorkes Drift.
Featuring a well known cast that includes Stanley Baker, Michael Caine and Jack Hawkins, this film is as enthralling today as it was back in 1964. If you like action in your films you will enjoy Zulu a lot.
In the UK Paramount pictures owns the rights as they do in North America thus it's very likely that the same transfer will be released in the USA which is unfortunate and a real shame.
Regarding the transfer of Zulu onto Blu Ray and i have to report its bad news, the Paramount logo at the beginning has frozen static grain and then we get the opening music score with the title sequence before the main movie starts, at this point i wasn't concerned and thought i was in for a treat but i was more than a little shocked to find that once the film actually started playing there was a complete lack of any fine high definition detail and the background scenery and some other scenes sometimes showed obvious signs of sharpening as edge enhancement prevailed.
The situation did not improve as the film went on and i find it hard to believe there are people defending this transfer and saying how beautiful it looks, it really is very poor and the culprit seems to be an application of DNR with too many automated scratch removal passes and the addition of some edge enhancement on selected scenes to sharpen up the film after the DNR and scratch removal has removed all the fine detail from the image. I am led to believe this transfer was done for Sky movies in the UK with Paramounts involvement, it takes up 34GB of disc space.
A little technical detail should now be said about Super Technirama 70 since Zulu was filmed in this format, Super Technirama 70 is not a true 70mm format and is actually grainier than standard real 70mm shot films, technically its a 35mm blowup but unlike traditional 35mm blow ups its done in one direction only as the height of the negative matches 5 perf 70mm film prints thus all you needed to do is unsqueeze the negative to fill the frame. The negatives were specially processed with Zircotan bleach to give the image grain and contrast suitable for optical printing.
The problems with Super Technirama prints is that often over time the original negative will fade and that is why a film such as Spartacus required such extensive restoration many years ago and that film could no longer use the original negative and thus its quality was degraded.
Zulu deserves better than this, its not film like and looks processed, its as bad as Basic Instinct, another film that was lacking on Blu Ray. Click here for my thoughts on that transfer.
I'm just shocked that there are people out there who think this looks good as there is just absolutely no fine detail in the image at all. I sometimes wonder if people see a clean image and mistake it for a great image, yes the image is clean and has no specks on the print but i'll take specks over a lack of detail any day of the week. Its also silly that some have tried to justify their purchase of this turkey by saying the waxy look on peoples faces is due to film make up, thats nonsense as the "look" is on every frame of the image and not just faces.
This is the sort of film that high definition was made for and it could look stunning and the fact it looks this bad means they went cheap on the transfer or someone screwed up, probably both.
Incidentally the sound is Dolby 2.0 at 448kbp/s which replicates the original 4 channel 35mm cinema presentations, the 6 channel magnetic soundtrack is apparently lost which is a pity as they could have made a good 5.1 channel lossless track from it.
View blu ray screencaps of Zulu below. Double click for the full HD frame.
My comment is simple: You have no idea what this film looked like when it was shown. I don't know how you watch these things and I really don't care – the Zulu transfer is amazing – sharp as a tack (no fine detail – right there you lost me – the detail is incredible), with perfect color. I cannot imagine a better presentation of this film other than seeing it in a pristine print in the theater. Please, why don't you tell us your credentials and why you think you know something about a) how films of this vintage and technical process should look (yes, we know you read something on the Internet), b) why you feel anyone should take your thoughts as gospel, and c) how you came to review Blu Ray discs on the Internet.
I’m glad you are pleased with it, i was not.
I state once again that the transfer lacks fine detail in clothes, backgrounds, faces, buildings, everything really.
I have been into cinema since i was a youngster, that was a long time ago and i have seen VHS come and go, then Laserdisc and DVD and now Blu Ray, i know the technical aspects of each of these formats and what they can deliver ( or cannot deliver )
I have also educated myself over the many years of viewing movies and i tend to know a lot of information about the director and cinematographer as well as the actors of each film and thats without looking up IMDB and to me it helps to understand how a film is likely to have looked if you know the history of the cinematographer or director working on the movie in conjunction with the year the film was made, the year it was made helps identify the type of cameras and film stock used as well as the phase the particular director might have been going through and thus you can know how the film should look based on all that information although i don’t mind admitting that from time to time i call it wrong, i’d love to say i called it wrong this time but i cannot because as soon as the film started i was appalled at the processed look i was seeing onscreen, absolutely terrible and i believe you are confusing a clean look with high definition.
Photography is also a passion of mine and if i had photographs which looked as processed as Zulu i would be asking myself what went wrong.
So to answer your question i’m a bit of a film buff, i know many people were pleased with the Zulu transfer to blu ray but i question their judgement, in much the same way you are now questioning mine but i will add that you just need to check out other reviews on the site to see that i am fair with my comments and if i see good i call it, if i see bad i also call it.
Tell me, lets forget about the lack of fine detail for one moment, can you even spot the edge enhancement which is clearly visible in a handful of the screencaps. ?
A) See above
B) No one is asking you to take my word as gospel and if you enjoyed it then i’m pleased for you, i did not and felt it was absolutely poor, read some of my other reviews and you might understand my approach to all this.
C) I’m a film fan but i have learned much over the years and know about issues commonly seen on these discs and i like to let others know, that way i can be more informative to anyone that reads my site, not everyone will agree but i stand by my post on Zulu.
I have to say, Dark_Fox, that sometimes I see comments from people such as yourself and wonder to myself if you people have lost the ability to let the story take you away. As in constant comparisons to previous formats, studying each and every pixel on the screen and whatnot. I also sometimes wonder if this over-picky attitude is some kind of narcissistic indulgence. I myself could watch Zulu on VHS on a black and white 14″ portable CRT TV from Aldi…and I would enjoy myself immensely, letting the story whisk me away…and that is an ability I’m determined to keep. All Blu-ray and my surround system do for me is *enhance* the experience, nothing more.
That isn’t to say I don’t hate awful transfers…I do…and when I come across something like the initial BD pressing of Gladiator, I get annoyed…as I have paid a premium price for better quality than the DVD I likely already own, and it is not fair if I don’t get it. However, this is NOT something that can be levelled at the BD of Zulu. Yes they have used DNR and other digital wizardry, but they have not removed all of the grain structure….I can still see both it and most of finer the details. Clearly they have struck a balance. I’m guessing you’re one of these people who wish to see grain *completely* left alone, but you have to accept you’re in a minority of purists with that. I have many examples in my collection where they have used DNR to great effect…and I believe Zulu is one such title. Of course I would have also enjoyed it had they left ALL the grain in, too. Like I say….it merely enhances, it is NOT the be all and end all of the film experience and, for those who feel it is, I pity them.
Well Matthew, i have seen Zulu many times, the story is fabulous as is the acting, if i merely wished to get involved in the story then i could simply buy an old VHS copy or the DVD edition, it’s not fussy to want film like quality in your home and to point out transfers which have had too much processing applied to them, there is sometimes a fine line though and i believe they crossed it with this Zulu transfer.
I do enjoy the films regardless of the transfer but i started this site to highlight what i believe are good transfers and bad transfers and also to provide some entertainment related news, no one needs to take my word as gospel, i keep repeating that, by all means watch the film and enjoy it, but i repeat this transfer has too much degraining, it has edge enhancement, edge enhancement is a sharpening filter only applied after too much degraining has removed fine detail, the edge sharpening fools our brains into believing we are seeing detail but we are not, that detail is artificial and fake, indeed the edge halo’s on the mountain landscape and around people and objects are a giveaway for this, i’m sorry if you cannot see this but that’s why i write in detail and provide screencap evidence although i always say watch the film in motion and form your own judgment as you have done.
To see how they should treat an old classic from the sixties i suggest watching The Sound Of Music, that’s a fabulous restoration and they treated the film with respect, a much better blu ray release than the processed looking Zulu.
Incidentally the comparisons are for fun, they just tend to show how good blu ray detail is compared to dvd.
You are wrong about me with regards to how i view film grain, i want a fine balance struck, you are aware, i hope, that when they make film scans at higher resolutions that this can also make the grain more prominent and sharper, it can show film grain that is not intended to be seen in such sharp detail and i’m talking about 8K scans of 35mm shot films, in such cases it is perfectly acceptable to decrease the grain levels to what the director intended for the cinema release and they do this on many releases, no problem there as long as they do not go overboard and scrub things clean, i want an unprocessed looking film like image, Zulu fails on that count, any HD release which has this much edge enhancement cannot be considered a good release, finally you say you pity me, please do not pity me but instead try and understand the points i raise instead of reacting as if i want perfection, i do not want perfection i merely wish to see competent releases.
Perhaps you can name me examples of films in your collection where DNR was used to great effect.
I am having a wonderful time reading the book, Zulu With Some Guts Behind It: The Making of the Epic Movie by Sheldon Hall. I highly recommend it. At one point, some participants bemoan the fact that under apartheid rules, they could only use 250 Zulu warriors when they had budgeted for 750 (to portray the 3500-4000 in the actual battle). Clearly, this great movie would have been enhanced with more Zulu warriors attacking (same goes for an inferior movie, Zulu Dawn). So perhaps one day someone will digitally add more Zulu’s to achieve the filmaker’s original intentions (as George Lucas has done for the original Star Wars movie). Just my humble suggestion.
Zulu Dawn was ok and told of the events leading up to the attack seen in Zulu but i think the music score isn’t as memorable and it didn’t really impress me the way Zulu did, still it’s a fine companion piece and might be worth watching first before anyone settles down and views Zulu.
Thanks for mentioning the book, it sounds a worthwhile read.
Thanks for the compliment, Richard, but I think Cy Endfield would have been appalled at the prospect of digitally added Zulus! His intentions were realised by working with what he had at the time. Change the resources at his disposal, and his creative choices might have been different. Any attempt to alter the work by a video producer or technician nearly fifty years after the fact would certainly be a betrayal, not a service. As for George Lucas’s second thoughts in reworking his “masterpiece”, they are between him, his conscience and his accountant.
You only need read the 99% five star reviews on amazon to see how wrong people can be. All that you’ve said about the Zulu disc is correct.
I find it disturbing that a majority of viewers do not care how a film is presented as long as it “looks good” superficially. Clearly they do not appreciate
the difference between restoration and tampering.