The film stars Stanley Baker and introduces Michael Caine in his first major role, with a supporting cast that includes Jack Hawkins, Ulla Jacobsson, James Booth, Nigel Green, Paul Daneman, Glynn Edwards, Ivor Emmanuel, and Patrick Magee.

First shown on the 85th anniversary of the battle, 22 January 1964, at the Plaza Theatre in the West End of London, Zulu received widespread critical acclaim, with praise for its sets, soundtrack, cinematography, action sequences, and the cast's performances, particularly Baker, Booth, Green, and Caine.

Witt and Margareta flee to their missionary station when they realise that the Zulu are going to attack the remote outpost at Rorke's Drift in Natal.

He has wagons, sacks of mealie (maize), and crates of hardtack stacked to form a defensive perimeter, gun holes knocked in the hospital walls, and a medical ward set up in Witt's chapel.

A contingent of South African cavalrymen from Isandlwana arrive, refuse Chard's pleas to help reinforce the station on the grounds that it is hopeless, and swiftly depart on their horses.

Enraged by Chard arming the hospital's patients and ordering them to fight instead of allowing them to be evacuated, the minister Witt persuades the Zulus serving in the Natal Native Contingent to desert.

The Zulu impis approach and charge but quickly retreat under British fire; Adendorff explains that they are trying to find weak points in the station's defences.

Chard is concerned that the northern perimeter wall is under-defended and realises that the Zulus, aware of this, are preparing to attack the station from all sides.

The hospital's hay roof catches fire and the whole building is engulfed; Private Henry Hook rallies the patients to fight attacking warriors and escape.

The next morning, a large number of Zulus approach to within several hundred yards and sing a lament for their dead before launching again into their war chant.

[10] The film was compared by Baker to a Western movie, with the traditional roles of the United States Cavalry and Native Americans taken by the British and the Zulu, respectively.

Director Endfield showed a Western to Zulu extras to demonstrate the concept of film acting and how he wanted the warriors to conduct themselves.

[11][10] Michael Caine, who was primarily playing bit parts at this early stage in his career, was originally up for the role of Private Henry Hook, which went to James Booth.

Director Cy Endfield told him that it was the worst screen test he had ever seen, but they cast Caine in the part anyway because the production was leaving for South Africa shortly and they had not found anyone else for the role.

[5] Caine said that he was fortunate that the film was directed by an American (Endfield), because "no English director would've cast me as an officer, I promise you, not one," due to his Cockney roots.

[12] Caine later said "My entire movie career is based on the length of the bar at the Prince of Wales theatre, because I was on my way out [after failing to get the part auditioned for] and it was a very long walk to the door.

[15] The basic premises of the film are true and largely accurate, but some characters are fictionalised or bear little resemblance to their real life counterparts.

No pacifist, Witt had co-operated closely with the British Army and earlier negotiated a lease to put Rorke's Drift at Lord Chelmsford's disposal.

Comments from veterans many years after the event suggest the British killed many of these wounded men in the battle's aftermath, raising the total number of Zulu deaths to more than 700.

[20][23] This sequence has been both praised for showing the Zulus in a positive light and treating them and the British as equals, and criticised as undermining any anti-imperial message of the film.

Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote that "if you're not too squeamish at the sight of slaughter and blood and can keep your mind fixed on the notion that there was something heroic and strong about British colonial expansion in the 19th century, you may find a great deal of excitement in this robustly Kiplingesque film.

It has a restrained, leisurely tension, the heroics are splendidly stiff-upper-lip and such granite worthies as Stanley Baker and Jack Hawkins head the cast.

But whenever there is a pause in the action the script plunges relentlessly into bathos, with feuding officers, comic other ranks, and all the other trappings of British War Film Mark I, which one had hoped were safely obsolete.

The consensus summarizes: "Zulu patiently establishes a cast of colorful characters and insurmountable stakes before unleashing its white-knuckle spectacle, delivering an unforgettable war epic in the bargain.

[42] In 2010, Alex von Tunzelmann of The Guardian gave the film a grade of B, saying: "The Zulus are a mystery, the Welsh are misplaced, a Victoria Cross recipient is slandered, and no one has enough facial hair.

Nonetheless, Zulu is a brilliantly made dramatisation of Rorke's Drift, and it does a fine job of capturing the spirit for which the battle is remembered.

Stating that the film "has lost none of its impact over the years", it praises the battle sequences, calling them "impressively staged" and the portrayal of the Zulus "as noble figures who develop a mutual respect for the British, even as they are trying to kill them".

[45] In a Telegraph article, Will Heaven wrote, "Zulu is a story of real-life heroism seen through the lenses of Victorian propaganda and Hollywood epic cinema.

"[46] In regards to the film's attitudes on race, author Daniel O'Brien noted one of the Zulus killing one of their own to protect Witt's daughter, and how Bromhead dismissing the native auxiliaries who died with the column at Isandhlwana, "Damn the levies man – more cowardly blacks", is reprimanded by Adendorff.

While the vast majority of cinemas would have played the film in 35mm anyway, the Plaza's West End screenings were of the 35mm anamorphic version as well rather than, as might have been expected, a 70mm print.