Blog

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 27.

Zulu (1964)

I’d like to think a great war movie could be made about the Battle of Rorke’s Drift—but Zulu (1964) isn’t it.

In history videos on YouTube, Zulu warriors are always portrayed as one of the most fearsome and disturbingly ferocious forces you’d never want to find yourself at odds with. I was hoping to see a good reason here for why that is. Why wasn’t I shown that?

Almost nothing in Zulu is realistic or historically accurate. The filmmakers present a sanitized and implausible depiction of what actually happened. The movie tries to romanticize Zulu culture as being more about art and admiration than actual victory in war. There are large dance and singing sequences that seem really cool to see on film—until you find out they were written by composers for the movie. I studied primitive cultures’ music in college (my degree is in music), and I don’t know why Western filmmakers feel the need to evolve or improve what actually existed. For instance, modern takes on Native American tribal music always wind up sounding like 20th-century Japan to me.

I’m not going to say Zulu is historically useless—it does a few things right, mostly just by existing at all. You get to see thousands of modern Zulu extras dressed like their great-great-grandfathers and wielding accurate-looking spears and shields. A lot of it just looks cool, and you do learn a few surprising details. For instance, the Zulu brought many guns to the battle, but they were outdated and the warriors were poorly trained in their use. The reality is they only might have hit a few British soldiers—almost by accident. In the movie, it seems like dozens of British soldiers are constantly dying and falling on top of each other.

The movie opens with a real head-scratcher of a sequence. A British missionary and his daughter observe a Zulu wedding ceremony. The daughter keeps asking questions: Why would a young woman marry an older man? The answer: in Britain, younger women marry rich older men all the time. Maybe a Zulu woman wants a brave older man. Isn’t it awful that they don’t wear clothes? Her father responds with one of the best lines in the movie:

> “The Book says, ‘What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?’ You must understand these things if you’re going to stay in Africa. That’s why I brought you here. They are a great people, daughter.”



Then the scene ends… absurdly. The daughter suddenly freaks out, rushes back to the carriage, and starts screaming like she’s being chased—even though no one’s threatening her. A man stands at the door. She continues to scream while getting inside. He says something in Zulu to the other warriors. Then—seemingly out of nowhere—another Zulu warrior stabs the man at the door. The carriage rides away and a hundred Zulu give chase for about 50 feet. This is never brought up again.

This didn’t really happen. It seems to serve no narrative purpose except to suggest that a British woman couldn’t handle being around non-white people and would get hysterical on a whim. Then a Zulu warrior stabs one of his own, seemingly out of confusion. So in one swift scene, the movie manages to be both racist and misogynistic—all for the apparent logic of “you can’t open a movie with just an hour of dialogue where nothing happens. Kill someone!” “Okay, Mr. Producer.”

It’s a real flaw that the movie is only told from the British perspective. There’s no context for why the Zulu were fighting the British at all. The setup is basically: “We were just living here, minding our own business, when thousands of Zulu came up to our door and started threatening us.” The truth is, colonial Britain was one of the most evil regimes in history—and we don’t get to see even a moment of what the Zulu were fighting for.

The film tries to balance out that lack of perspective by framing the battle as one of mutual admiration and respect. But in truth, the British actually won this battle—and it took a lot of effort and smart fighting to do it. In the movie, the Zulu suddenly retreat for no good reason. They then linger to perform a fabricated “salute song” that seems to say, “We respect you. We have proven ourselves. Now we’ll leave you be.” So… the Zulu actually won the battle and then chose to walk away? Absolute hogwash. Not only does it make no sense, it makes the ending feel so anticlimactic it’s hard to understand why the film was made at all.

And yet—I can’t hate this. It looks great. It’s about a period of history we almost never see on screen. That’s likely because you can’t make a movie about 1800s colonial Britain without making them look like the bad guys—because they were the bad guys. But Britain today is too cuddly to confront on screen, and no country really has the cultural appetite to take them on now.

Germany, maybe:

> “Wanted: hundreds of British actors for a movie that will show how terrible you all are.”

I’d buy a ticket.

6/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 26.

A box office bomb. This was the second film John Ford released that year, after Stagecoach, yet it had almost three times the budget. I watched Stagecoach recently, and this one is certainly the more memorable film. It portrays Lincoln as a bastion of sensible earnestness—always trying his hardest to solve disputes, to mediate.

The easiest comparison is To Kill a Mockingbird, with Abraham Lincoln as Atticus Finch. It’s possible Harper Lee never saw this before writing her literary monument, but the similarities are striking. This feels like a prototype for most courtroom movies and TV shows in the 85 years since—for better or worse.

It’s very well made in terms of boosting a well-known political figure into the realm of cultural hero. For a movie that openly embraces mythologized biography, it’s surprisingly accurate. There were at least five details I didn’t realize were true about Mr. Lincoln. If this really was his early life, it deserves a full biography.

Directed by the masterful John Ford, this is in another league of quality compared to To Kill a Mockingbird. The story itself isn’t the strongest element—Lincoln really did teach himself to be a lawyer, and he once won a murder case by submitting a Farmer’s Almanac as evidence. The trial portrayed isn’t historically accurate, but the details are rooted in real events.

This is a story about a man who tries to do what’s right, only to find himself in situations where the right thing is murky or even impossible. Being virtuous and fair can be one of life’s hardest callings. When he defended murderers, he often wasn’t sure if they were innocent or honest.

A John Ford level of polish elevates this film from forgettable to a treasurable gem. The music is lush and nostalgic, the dialogue is sharp, and the characters are worth knowing.

Based on a poem, the film is a great tribute to a man who changed the world slowly, one step at a time. I know it’s largely myth, but I can’t help it—I’m now convinced this man was our nation’s greatest president, and likely always will be.

8/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 25.

If someone made this movie as their final project for a class called “How to Make a Horror Movie,” it would probably squeak by with an A-. There’s nothing wrong with it, per se, but it doesn’t do anything new. It’s continuously interesting and vaguely entertaining, mostly because it understands the bones of what works in slasher films and uses well-worn tropes in textured ways that avoid feeling overly familiar. But once it’s over, you have to wonder: is this movie actually saying anything?

The movie works, don’t get me wrong—but what was it going for? Are we supposed to be afraid of going to a farmhouse in the country to film a sex movie? That’s not a relatable fear. If someone goes missing, should I now fear walking around barefoot in my underwear? The characters get themselves into situations so far removed from normal life that the scares don’t land.

The villains are the weakest part of X. They aren’t intimidating, smart, sadistic, or even overtly twisted. They’re only scary because they suddenly gain superhuman strength and agility without explanation. Should we now be afraid of running into an old man who resents us for making his wife want to have sex with him? That’s the basic premise here. It’s kind of delightful in its uniqueness, but it doesn’t tap into any universal fear.

The first 80% of the movie feels like it could’ve been the third entry in Tarantino and Rodriguez’s Grindhouse. But it fails to go all the way. No big moment is established for payoff. On the poster, Mia Goth is holding an ax with both hands—this set me up for a blood-soaked revenge finale. That never comes, and I felt underwhelmed.

The biggest flaw is the lack of a secondary villain. If the older couple had a son who showed up, someone truly intimidating or warped, the third act could’ve had real stakes. It’s hard to care when the only interesting characters are the good guys—and they all die too early.

There are great moments, especially in how much these young people love making a porn film. They seem to know what they’re doing. Martin Henderson does his best Matthew McConaughey and gets so excited about a scene he puts another guy’s hand on his erection. Ti West’s attitude toward pornographers is oddly wholesome, maybe even too much so. If I could transplant the sex stuff from X into Zack and Miri Make a Porno, that could’ve made for a cult masterpiece. Likewise, if X had any kind of love story, it might have felt more complete.

I watched this after seeing Pearl, and Pearl is the star-making piece of trash X probably wanted to be. Its setting is more distinct, Mia Goth gets a more layered character, and the central idea—ambition turned to madness—is more familiar and grounded. I wasn’t alive during the end of WWI, but I felt like I could run into someone like Pearl. I found myself squinting at strangers thinking, “Is this a Pearl?”

In X, they tried to make Mia Goth the lead first—but why? Her character doesn’t do much, isn’t particularly compelling in the sex scenes, and isn’t clever. She just sort of walks around with her nipples half-heartedly covered. She’s curious wallpaper. Goth plays the part well enough, but it’s not a strong role. This team needed another film where they threw out the rulebook. X is too safe. Too academic. Pearl felt like it needed to exist.

X ends on a clever note, a few lines that are remarkably well set up. It’s just a shame the rest of the movie isn’t much more than competently engaging. A lot of skill went into it, and yeah, I had a good time. But should you see it? Maybe—but more as a comparison piece to see what horror movies often get wrong. Ti West should be a script doctor. He could rescue a lot of movies that actually need to be made.

7/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 24.

“I was the world’s champion blind lady today.”

Audrey Hepburn plays Susy Hendrix, a remarkably chipper, recently blinded homemaker married to a photographer. Ahh, the irony—her husband is an artist, yet she’ll never see his work again.

Wait Until Dark debuted as a play in 1966, which is remarkable to me. An actually scary play back then? Much of the tension takes place in total darkness, using clever lighting tricks. It must’ve been fantastic to see live.

Fun fact: it ran for 374 performances on Broadway, and for each one, Robert Duvall fell down a small flight of stairs. He wasn’t the only one. Was the impact worth it? Why does she live in a basement? It is a miniscule aspect of the production, but it adds impact to the big moments. Stage actors really will die for their craft.

The movie is great for a few reasons. First, the dialogue is top-notch. The villains are smart and strategic, the good guys are joyful and resourceful, and everyone feels believable.

The direction is equally strong. Terence Young doesn’t let the camera sit still—the apartment is seen from every angle, which is perfect for a thriller where space matters. You know the stakes of every movement, and it’s nerve-wracking to wonder whether she’ll take that extra step or remember where the knife is.

The obvious reason to see Wait Until Dark is Audrey Hepburn. She’s never been better—not just because she plays blind so convincingly. Probably no one else could play optimistic and cheery as well, and her performance is as chilling as any late ’70s scream queen.

The movie expands beyond the single-set apartment, but only a little. There’s a dialogue-free airport intro, and a memorable scene where neighbor Gloria cons her way out. You see the street and a phone booth that keeps ringing. Still, it feels like a filmed play. With more liberties, it could’ve reached Hitchcock’s level.

Most of the details are perfect, but the other key reason it works—besides Audrey—is the music. Henry Mancini’s score deserves a place beside The Exorcist and Halloween as one of horror’s creepiest. Dissonant, eerie bells—likely prepared piano and vibraphones—create a distinct sound. It’s been ripped off plenty, but still feels fresh. There’s not much of it, but it doesn’t need much to build dread.

I watched The 101 Scariest Movie Moments of All Time on Shudder, and this was featured. I’m always wary of horror clip shows spoiling moments, but I was happy with how things unfolded. Modern audience scores on platforms like the IMDb are very high, especially for a horror movie from before the genre got truly scary.

The biggest scares come from small things. It plays on our fear of strangers, of not locking the door, of being blind, of trusting elaborate lies. It was a different world in 1967—precautions weren’t widely adopted yet, because there weren’t many cautionary tales like this.

Violent crime more than doubled from 1966 to 1970, showing a real need for stories that reflected a changing world. The film did its job—earning $17.5 million in the U.S. (about $170 million today). It was a major step in horror’s evolution, and in helping people see the world differently. I’d call it the next big step after Psycho.

8.5/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 23.

The Vast of Night is about two young people in 1950s New Mexico at the start of their careers. Fay is a nighttime telephone operator, and Everett is a radio DJ whose show often overlaps with her shift. The two exchange ideas about radio frequencies, communication technology, and on-air topics while they record. As they head to a high school basketball game, they cross paths with various townspeople—though they’re both really headed to work.

The most obvious thing about The Vast of Night is that the first half is better than the second. This isn’t so much a movie as it is a directing showcase. “Look at all the neat tricks I can do,” first-time director Andrew Patterson seems to say. He opens with sharp dialogue and rarely lets up. Sierra McCormick (Fay) and Jake Horowitz (Everett) are natural performers, developing a clever, easy rapport. Patterson creates characters that exude charm—people you genuinely want to spend time with.

The period details are outstanding. The dresses, the analog tech, the cars—all of it feels lovingly recreated. The production is fully amped up, as though this story needed the finest craftsmanship across the board. Small details are treated as vital clues in a puzzle larger than it appears. I’m just not convinced.

If this were an episode of a TV show, I’d rave about it endlessly. I don’t want to say it adds up to nothing, but it does the hardest parts so well that it’s easy to forget it skips over the essential elements of storytelling. It exudes atmosphere and builds a world that feels worth living in. Every moment is enjoyable. But… that’s about all I can say for it. The film needed a second act that ramped up the stakes, delivered strong set pieces, or introduced a plotline that lingered after the credits rolled. It’s safe to say almost anyone would agree it has none of those things.

Now I want to see Andrew Patterson direct a full feature—something uniquely paced and emotionally resonant. Some of his more ambitious choices, like a long tracking shot across the entire town, don’t add much. It felt like a Disney World ride—cool, sure—but not necessarily the right tool for this particular story. It’s a sequence that flaunts the film’s budget rather than serves its mood or characters.

Even the jobs feel a bit too easy. Being a telephone operator and a DJ is portrayed without much stress or realism. Fay singlehandedly routes every call with a few cable switches, with little else to do besides chat with Everett about a mysterious sound. Both of them can leave their posts whenever they want and don’t seem particularly obligated to return. A long-distance caller reaches Everett live—how did he even hear the broadcast? The small events that do occur feel rushed and improbable if this were a real emergency.

This story would’ve benefited from taking place over multiple days. Even more, it begged to be a full-blown horror film. The atmosphere is there—it just needs a situation to match. I can try to make this more exciting than it is, but I know it isn’t. A movie like this demands a twist—or at least a plot turn that redefines everything we’ve seen. Instead, it builds to a sense of foreboding that ultimately feels a little dishonest. It’s a ho-hum thriller, made exciting only because of its promise of future projects this team might eventually produce.

7/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 22.

The second most famous film by the director of Bicycle Thieves may not reach the same heights as that masterpiece, but Umberto D. is a sincere and modest minor tragedy—quiet, sad, and human. It’s the second film I’ve seen (after Make Way for Tomorrow) that centers on an elderly person who’s waited too long to address rent or mortgage problems, only to face impending homelessness. In this case, Umberto lives alone with his  dog, Flike—and he fears homelessness more for the dog’s sake than his own.

Umberto D. is a prime example of Italian Neorealism, a genre defined by minimal plot, focus on the working class, and an emphasis on realism and humanism. Director Vittorio De Sica employs nonprofessional actors, with Umberto played by Carlo Battisti, a retired professor. His inexperience brings a vulnerability that feels lived-in.

The film follows Umberto Domenico Ferrari, a retired government employee, as he tries to navigate postwar Italy’s economic realities. Early on, we see him walking a picket line to demand an increase inn their inadequate pensions, which are hardly enough to cover rent. His landlady, Antonia, is of the unsympathetic upper class. She wants him out, not out of necessity, but so she can remodel to entertain upper class guests. She refuses partial rent and even endangers his dog. Her cruelty seems rather exaggerated, but maybe not entirely unrealistic.

As modern viewers, we might wish for more context. Did Umberto once have a family or a partner? Is Antonia struggling as well? These omissions prevent the film from becoming truly layered. The sadness here isn’t melodramatic; it’s cumulative, arising from isolation and desperation. Umberto has peers who might care for him, but his pride gets in the way. “I shouldn’t be in this situation!,” he seems to insist—but he is.

The final 15 minutes are rather fantastic, and they elevate the film into that special place. The story is simple but it lingers. Umberto still receives a pension, and it should be possible to scrape by—yet he’s adrift. When the world you expected crumbles, it’s hard to see a way forward. The film doesn’t try to inspire, but it brings dignity to a story of quiet struggle. You come away feeling like you truly knew this man. This is a story that is painfully common, yet rarely told.

9/10

My 27 Movie A-Z Film-a-thon: Day 21.

“Aye aye, matey.”

Why do people think this is what pirates sound like? That phrase pops up in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean ride, but it actually traces back to Treasure Island—specifically this 1950 Disney movie. No one says “matey” in the original book.

Young Jim is swept into an expedition with a doctor and a squire (where is Jim’s mother?) after a mysterious stranger gives him a treasure map. They bring along the doctor’s cook—Long John Silver—who just so happens to be the most obviously suspicious man imaginable. Silver stages a mutiny, takes over the ship, and reveals himself to be a pirate.

The film oozes with stylized lore. Its success hinges on selling the mythos of piracy, and Robert Newton couldn’t be better. He drips pirate swagger—almost too much. Why would a respectable doctor hire such an obvious pirate as his cook?

The movie seems to imply Silver was planning this all along. But if he was already a pirate, why was he working for the doctor before the map ever appeared? His presence aboard the ship only makes sense if the doctor was recruiting a crew after the map, as in the book. But this version rearranges events in a way that creates plot holes rather than clarifying anything.

Also: Silver is already missing a leg at the start, but the film never tells us why. It’s a missed opportunity—there’s no story behind it, not even a throwaway line. Did he lose it to gangrene? Did the doctor never ask? It’s one of many curious narrative gaps.

Treasure Island is good, not great. It’s historically significant and offers one of cinema’s most iconic pirate performances, but it doesn’t add much to the source material or the pirate genre overall. It leans heavily on atmosphere, production design, and Newton’s performance, while glossing over character logic and story coherence. Still, it’s a film I wouldn’t mind revisiting—if I were marooned on a desert island and had nothing better to do.

7/10