Opinión de planktonrules

About the only British war film I can think of that was more tension-filled than "Guns at Batasi" is "Zulu"--and that puts it in awfully good company. In addition, Richard Attenborough has a terrific performance as a very rigid and very traditional Sergeant Major.

The film is set in Africa in one of the nations that is still a member of the Commonwealth--though it has achieved the distinction of finally having its own government. However, like so many nascent African nations, it's unstable--and soon after the film begins there is a coup and the government topples. The problem is that a group of British soldiers are stationed there and the new leaders want the Brits to give up their weapons as well as surrender a man to them. But, the tough-as-nails Sergeant Major isn't about to do either of these unless he has a direct order to do so. And, it doesn't matter if there is a know-it-all member of Parliament (Flora Robson) telling him to do this--she is not his superior officer and he is not about to break the chain of command.

As I said, it's a very tense little film. You may not appreciate the Brit-focus (after all, they were a Colonial nation until just before the film took place) nor casting an unnecessary sex interest (why include this--isn't there enough action already--plus who stops to have sex when they are facing what appears to be certain death?!). I could look past these things and just saw it as a darn fine action-adventure film. Worth seeing.