It's undeniable that the film is grand visually, yet it feels drawn out and heavy-handed in its portrayal of the Zulu victory over the British soldiers stationed at Isandlwana near the close of the 1800s. It seems likely this was created to lead up to – and benefit from the popularity of – the much better "Zulu" from 1964, but it’s immediately noticeable for being verbose, slow-moving, and ultimately disappointing. Peter O'Toole conveys a sense of superiority as Lord Chelmsford, the army commander, however Burt Lancaster, with a rather unconvincing accent, appears infrequently as "Col. Durnford," contributing little beyond a brief jab at his superior’s failings as the Zulu warriors and British troops prepare to face off. The cast is noteworthy, but the well-known actors don't make much of an impact. We know from historical accounts what will unfold, and while the battle sequences are vividly presented with energy from the Zulus themselves in their choreographed fight scenes, they arrive too late to save the movie from being a visually bright but routine cinematic experience that doesn’t really engage our interest in either the characters or the colonial ambitions of the area at that time. It's just not very good, I'm afraid.

Source on TMDB