Opiniones de usuarios

This movie had the potential of being great - what with us going well over budget ($52mill) We had the stars - most being very professional but with two major flaws - with incompetents such as Douglas Hickox and Peter O'Toole (directly responsible for the over-budgeting) 2nd Unit Director, David Tomblin and Peter Mc Donald - 2n Unit film Director were largely responsible for saving the production - in many more ways than one.

Our skeleton crew had to re-shoot many scenes. It took a lot of serious brainstorming and communication with the amaZulu to be able to complete this very important depiction of one of many battlers that took place between the "natives" and the invading colonialist (Boer & British) armies.

The passion, pathos, emotion and pain of reliving this momentous battle had an immense effect on myself, especially as I was one of the isiZulu Interpretors and Liaison people - as well as one of the second assistants.

The scenery may well have been spectacular; but working in such close/intimate - trusting proximity with 6000 amaZulu warriors was an experience beyond all comprehension.

I still regard this movie to be a very valuable one - especially since the fall of the previous South African regime and highly recommend it.

Not perfect, but awesome in its spectacle and casting, ZULU DAWN makes a fine companion piece to it's earlier sequel, ZULU.

DAWN starts fairly slowly with lots of lengthy contrasting scenes in Zululand and Natal, showing a big rift between the comfortable life of the British Colonials in Natal vs. the primitive barbarism of the Zulus. It's only inevitable that conflict later comes in one way or another and boy does it ever! The final battle scene consumes roughly the last 30 minutes of the movie and it's very exciting to see roughly 1200 British soldiers swiftly get overrun by a 30,000 strong army of Zulu warriors armed with spears. The red coats mow down wave after wave of Zulus but they just keep coming. The best scenes show the Zulu wave murdering wounded soldiers lying in their beds and then even running through the poor mess cooks! Then comes one of the best shots in any epic film (reminding me of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and BATTLE OF NERETVA) with one excellent long shot where the entire background shows the Zulus swarming through the British tents while in the foreground a Zulu stabs and British soldier to death.

The main disappointment here is that Peter O'Toole is a bit underused and in his rather 2-dimensional presentation of Lord Chelmsford as an uptight snob really doesn't have the complexity or larger than life impact that one would usually expect from him. The rest of the cast comes off great though, especially Denholm Elliot, Peter Vaughan, Bob Hoskins, and especially Simon Ward. The musical score is very good as well, though at times possibly a little distracting and oppressive.

Hats off to the cinematographer and location managers for this one - I believe ZULU DAWN was shot at the actual South African locations near the real battle (though Isandlwana hill was too modernized and built up to use for the film), so the authenticity of this film shall probably go unequaled into history. I heartily recommend this film to any fan of large-scale war and action films - just hang in there for the climax as it's one of the finest in all filmdom.

In fact, a prequel to 'Zulu' (1964) directed by Cy Endfield who was also a major collaborator on ZD. As 'Zulu' is about the battle of O'rourke's drift, one of the most celebrated victories in British military history, ZD deals with one of the biggest defeats of the British army by an indigenous force. It happened just a few days before the events in 'Zulu'.

ZD is sheer heaven for history buffs : everything is recreated into the tiniest detail : the uniforms, entirely filmed on location in South-Africa Natal province , the famous Martini Henry rifles, even including some kind of prehistoric rocket launchers, so no cost or effort were spared to recreate the conditions of the battle.

The Brits are represented by the cream of English actorsgild : Peter O'Toole as the too self-confident general, Simon Ward as the green lieutenant, Bob Hoskins (just before his breakthrough role in "the Long Good Friday") as a hardasnails sergeant and Denholm Elliot as one of the ignorant troop commanders.

Also a large Boer party ( settlers mostly from Holland as 'Boer' is the Dutch word for farmer) took part in the battle, lead here by none other then Burt Lancaster ! In 1879 the Boers still sided with The British against the Zulus. Twenty years later, after having defeated the Zulus, the Brits and Boers turned against each other and became involved in a struggle for the diamond-rich Natal province. A very bloody three-year war followed, simply known as 'the Boer war', where the British army was nearly defeated by the much smaller number of unprofessional Boers soldiers.

Director Douglas Hickox ( Entertaining Mr Sloane, Sitting Target, Sky Devils,etc..)does an excellent job and turns in a classic-style, immaculate and spectacular epic. Sadly ZD was a big flop at the box-office and marked the end of the old-style colonial epics, up until the recent remake of 'The Four Feathers'.

It also marked the end of the career of director Hickox in feature-length movies and he was forced to work for TV, condemned to churning out superior 'schmalzy' series as 'Mistral's Daughter', 'Sins', etc...

But as historical epics go, they do not come any better than this. I rate it 8/10.

If you like this try also 'Khartoum' (1966).

The events leading up to and culminating with the 1879 battle of Ishandlwana are depicted very well in this exciting film. Although made some 15 years after the 1964 flim "Zulu", this film is actually the "prequel" to the other and should be viewed first in order for a better understanding of these two events in the British invasion of Zululand. The cast contains too many splendid actors and performances to single any out. Some historical errors do creep in but, on the whole, the film conveys the look and feel of the real thing. Very much worth the price of admission.

This historical epic is a spectacular retelling dealing with the deeds leading a bloody battle where a regiment was massacred by a force over thousands of brave Zulus commanded by Cetschwayo (Sabela) at Zululand . In command of British force is General Lord Chelmsford well played by Peter O'Toole and an excellent Burt Lancaster plays Colonel Durnford as a tough and veteran officer . Extraordinary secondary cast formed by prestigious British actors , such as : Simon Ward, John Mills, Peter Vaughn , Ronald Lacey , Michel Jayston , James Faulkner(also producer), among others . The battle scenes are magnificent with deployment of vast forces and thrilling combats when the army trying to defend from attack by thousands of Zulu warriors . Stunning cinematography with colorful landscapes and martial musical score by master composer Elmer Berstein. The picture was well directed by Douglas Hickox who translates perfectly the outstanding battles , though it failed at the box office . This is a prequel to the successful 'Zulu' (1963, Cy Endfield who wrote Zulu Dawn) depicting the electrifying battle of Roarke'Drift (1879) where little more than hundred soldiers made a valiant stand against thousands Zulu warriors .

Adding more details over the largely depicted on the movie, the incidents happened of the following manner : Zulu victory over British forces 22 Jan 1879 about 160 km, north of Durban. A column led by Lord Chelmsford seeking the Zulu army camped at Isandhlwara, road to Ulundi while patrols went out to scour the district. A report was received and Chelmsford moved out with half his strength, leaving the camp occupied by six companies of the 24th Regiment, two guns, some colonial volunteers and some native contingents: about 1800 troops in all. Late in the morning , an advance post warred of the approach of a Zulu army. Then a mounted patrol found thousands of Zulus concealed in a ravines as the patrol rode to warn the camp, the Zulus followed. The camp commander spread his troops around the perimeter of the camp, but the Zulus broke through, the native contingents fled but were chased and killed. The 21 officers and 534 soldiers of the 24Th Regiment were killed where they fought , there were no wounded , no prisoners and no missing. Only about 50 Europeans and 300 Africans escaped. The invasion of Zululand was temporarily halted until reinforcements were received from Britain. Despite the defeat, the Zulus were humiliated and crushed at Roark's Drift battle. The battle of Isandhalwana was recorded in history as the worst defeat ever inflicted on a modern army by native troops. In Parliament upon the downfall of his government, British Prime Minister , Benjamin Disraeli, asked the question: 'Who are these Zulus ,who are these remarkable people who defeat our generals , convert our bishops and who on this day have put an end to a great dynasty?¨

An impressive recreation of the events leading up to and of the battle of Isandlwana. The cast quality was first class, but the film jumped about from British to Zulu camps and back again to much, and some more footage of the Zulu rulers and their decisions would have been nice.

As it is the film gave a fairly balanced account of both sides. The actual battle scenes were very impressive but given the area at Isandlwana were not as tightly shot as in Zulu nor as good, and thus the same atmosphere just wasn't there, with scenes jumping around, and you could not relate to the individual characters as much as in Zulu, as they were on and off screen to quickly.

The Zulu charge though was frightening, and you felt for the soldiers who had to meet it. In short, not as good as the original, and with some mistakes in the British weapons and some equipment, but a very good introduction to Zulu if you were to see both movies back to back.

ZULU DAWN lives in the shadow of ZULU . That's hardly surprising because ZULU is the much better film , however unlike the 1964 film DAWN does stick to historical accuracy . The British are portrayed rightly as being overconfident , arrogant and foppish and it's this hubristic attitude that has lost wars when a superpower looks down its nose at the fighting capabilities of a backward third world nation . The British almost repeated the same mistakes during the Boar war , and the French and Americans done it in south east Asia , and the red army did it in Afghanistan.

DAWN does chronicle in great depth the mistakes made at the battle of Isandlwana: Chelmsford split his forces , the army didn't reinforce the perimeter , they were spread too thinly , and the method of supplying ammo was totally flawed , but it's this that spoils the film , there is too much emphasis of what happened to cause this defeat . Despite having an all star cast ( Two of which won Oscars and a couple more who have been nominated ) there's little character focus and you care little for the people involved . The film would have worked much better if it concentrated on just Chelmsford and Bob Hoskins gruff Sgt Major instead of the many characters who drift in and out of the picture

ZULU DAWN isn't a complete waste of time though , despite the long wait the battle scenes are handled well ( But not as good as ZULU ) and like ZULU it shows that a lot of brave men died on both sides

Update March 2008 . Recent historical evidence suggests that ZULU DAWN is fairly inaccurate especially where mass ranks , or the lack of them are concerned . But still knowing what historians knew in 1979 it's still a serious attempt to portray the battle accurately at the time

Zulu Dawn has some incredible photography with an epic feel it seems a lot of the plaudits for that should go to the second unit team rather than the director Douglas Hickox, who was more of a hack and unfortunately this epic was over his head and thus he delivered a less than engaging and loose film that also went over budget.

The film recounts the defeat of the bellicose British forces intent on invading Zululand as the British forces are split and soon taken by surprise by the Zulus.

The film has the usual cyphers from the arrogant, pompous nobility (Peter O'Toole), the experienced Sergeant Major type (Bob Hoskins), the more sensitive and noble officer (Simon Ward), the natural heroic leader of men (Burt Lancaster). There is some craftiness with Peter Vaughan as the jovial Quartermaster accounting for each bullet.

There is a large cast and a larger cast of extras which makes you think what would the film had turned out if someone like Richard Attenborough had directed this film with a stronger script. This is a diffuse story, a lot of fine actors with little to do, and although the battle scenes are fine, you do wonder why the Zulus are shown as nothing more than warriors running with spears while some of the British soldiers are having a noble death.

I like "Zulu Dawn," but maybe for strange reasons. I'm glad that it favors plot over characterization, and I appreciate its attention to detail and tactics. Too many modern war movies ignore tactics, and don't place battles in their proper contexts. Here, it's easy to follow exactly what's happening, and why.

What makes the film especially memorable is that it's the story of a military disaster - the biggest defeat of a "modern" army at the hands of a "primitive" one (though I believe the Zulus suffered higher casualties than the British did). The script pretty much telegraphs the battle's result from the beginning; Peter O'Toole, as the British commander, is clearly too stubborn and blind to danger, so the attentive viewer should realize fast that he's heading for a fall.

The ending is somewhat misleading, though. The final caption might suggest to some viewers that the Zulus won the whole war. Sadly, they were beaten pretty rapidly and suffered some hideous defeats. I guess that's what makes this initial Zulu victory so noteworthy - almost unbelievable, really.

As is often the case in war movies, "Zulu Dawn" features big-name actors playing real soldiers. This makes it easier to tell the somewhat thin characters apart. Though nobody gives a career-best performance, it's great to see O'Toole, Burt Lancaster, Bob Hoskins and a solid cast of British character actors together in one movie.

I don't suppose they'd ever make this today. The politics are too awkward; I don't think a modern audience would have much sympathy for the British or the Zulu. And, of course, contemporary movies have rejected old-time spectacle, electing to replace sweeping landscapes and huge crowds of extras with fake-looking CGI.

But, in this case, old-fashioned is good. "Zulu Dawn" is definitely worth checking out in budget DVD form.

It's 1879 South Africa. It's a clash of civilizations between the British empire and the Zulu nation under King Cetshwayo. When the King refuses to comply with the latest British ultimatum, the British declares war and invade. The British are under the command of the arrogant over-confident British commander Lord Chelmsford (Peter O'Toole). The troops cross the Buffalo river into Zulu lands and meet infamy at a hill called Isandlwana. Col. Durnford (Burt Lancaster) commands the Natal Native Contingent who tries to warn Chelmsford.

The first half has a bit too many uninteresting scenes. The British side especially needs to be streamlined. The encounter with King Cetshwayo is at least something different and has some tension. This has a great cast and a big production. It builds up to a great final battle. What I like most about the final battle is its wide ranging and scattered nature. It has the feel of reality as the British troops go into disorganized retreat.

Zulu Dawn (1979)

If you're nation likes to invade other nations, loot their treasures and replace all their foundations, it should come as no surprise, that the natives will then rise, to put a spear in the works, cause complications - you reap what you sow.

There are two outstanding elements to this film, the first is the cinematography and the natural landscapes with the indigenous people living among them (even when they're at war), the second is the history it reminds us of when it comes to Empire, and the effect that it has, not just on the indigenous populations, but those tasked with implementing it, all in the name of? The Man Who Would Be King is another great museum piece too, although, once you lift the lid.

Zulu Dawn (1979).

Ostensibly a detailed retelling of the defeat of British forces at Isandlwana, and an attempt to duplicate the success of the earlier "Zulu" (about the battle at Roarke's Drift, a British "Alamo" situation that the British won). However, "Zulu" had a taut storyline and the tension never leaves until the end. "Zulu Dawn" is necessarily more diffuse, covering the folks at home (both in South Africa and Zululand) and the converging of battle forces and the division of the British between Lord Chelmsford's column and the men at Isandlwana. Through it all, stock military characters (the crusty cockney Sgt. with the caring heart, the Gomer Pyle recruit, the commanding officer who can't even pronounce the name of the camp, the far-sighted outsider who gives satiric barbs about everything (in this case, newspaperman Norris-Newman, played with wonderful acidity by Ronald Lacey), the military commander who thinks he's omnipotent, the jolly young chaps in the officers' mess . . .

A lot of fine actors (Nicholas Clay, Simon Ward, James Faulkner, Ronald Pickup, Donald Pickering, Michael Jayston) wind up without much to do other than lend their names to a prestigious cast headed by Peter O'Toole, Burt Lancaster, and John Mills. Nigel Davenport comes off well with a flamboyant Hamilton-Browne and Lancaster and O'Toole are always dependable. But there's no focus in the story and there's little sympathy for either the British or the Zulus, such as they were able to impart in "Zulu".

Also, the movie takes the easy route through Isandlwana. Instead of ascribing any of the blame for the defeat to Col. Durnford (who should be considered the commander at Isandlwana rather than Pullein), all the blame is accounted to the hubris of Lord Chelmsford (the chilling Peter O'Toole). Though Chelmsford gives terse reasons for, say, not laagering his wagons, his reasoning should not be dismissed as specious. And it's never clear (as the fact was) that Chelmsford's was the _major_ column and not the camp at Isandlwana.

The main cause for the British disaster is fairly clear in the movie, and that's the method of giving out bullets. Peter Vaughan gives a crafty performance as the quarrelsome quartermaster who demands that each bullet be accounted for at the head office. The niggardly way the bullets were dispersed to the men, who were holding the Zulu back until they ran out of ammunition on the front lines while crates of bullets were held back in the wagons, was the primary cause of the disaster. It would've been nice to have broken with tradition by laying some blame on Col. Durnford for dividing the force, though Lancaster's Durnford is never anything less than the hero of the movie.

Most viewers probably don't care about the facts of the disaster, but they will care that the feature itself is not compelling. Nevertheless, if one can sit through it, it makes a companion piece to "Zulu" that does set up the tense drama and excitement of that better movie.

Zulu Dawn is a big budget prequel to the fine 1963 film Zulu which starred Stanley Baker and Michael Caine. That film concerned the freshly victorious Zulus from the battle of Isandlwana where they nearly annihilated a British army and were marching on a post at Rorke's Drift. Zulu Dawn tells of the Battle of Isandlwana and the incredible incompetence in underestimating the fighting spirit of the warlike Zulus.

They underestimated the military skill of Cetawayo their king who used their numerical advantage and also took advantage of certain problems with British weaponry and tactics.

The engagement at Isandlwana was not unlike the American cavalry annihilation at Little Big Horn. Lord Chelmsford the British commander played by Peter O'Toole made a lot of tactical errors including leaving his cavalry under Colonel Anthony Dumford who is played by Burt Lancaster on the other side of the Buffalo River out of Zulu Territory. General Custer also split his command, but it was he who died there. O'Toole also failed to properly set up fortifications in the base camp that was established. He could have learned something from the Boers who actually had a name for circling the wagons for defense called a Laager. It was probably the biggest blunder and I can't think who else would have been responsible, but O'Toole's character Chelmsford.

Lancaster's cavalry came to the rescue of O'Toole's infantry and was annihilated and only 50 men and 5 officers including O'Toole survived the attack. O'Toole's character Chelmsford spent the rest of his life trying to affix blame to anyone else, but him.

The film is told in fine documentary style with no embellishments. It needs none in telling the story of one of the United Kingdom's biggest military blunders.

In 1879, the British fought a series of battles against the Zulus. These Southern African Zulus mostly used short spears (assagais) and shields made of cow hide and the British assumed that beating them in war would be easy. However, despite the Brits having guns and cannons, many times they WERE beaten, though ultimately the won the war. These defeats are shows in excellent war films like "Zulu" as well as this film, "Zulu Dawn".

When the story begins, the British in the Natal colony have pushed the Zulus into war. However, while the commander of the British troops is cocky and confident, time shows that Lord Chelmsford was incompetent and his incompetence ultimately resulted in his being promoted...but not after a HUGE loss to the Zulus at the Battle of Isandhlwana.

In most ways, if you are looking for a film about the Zulu wars, I'd much more recommend "Zulu". It's less talky and much, much more tense. Heck, it makes you sweat and sit on the edge of your seat when you watch...making it one of the best war films you can find. Now this does NOT mean "Zulu Dawn" is bad...it does a good job of showing the beginning of the conflict and the British arrogance. My only complaint is the casting of Burt Lancaster, as he didn't sound the least bit British or Irish....just like Burt Lancaster! Otherwise, it's a very good film and is worth your time.

By the way, I cannot recall a movie showing the British victory at Ulundi...the battle that broke the Zulu forces once and for all. That could make for an interesting film...especially if you see if after "Zulu" and "Zulu Dawn".

This is the prequel to Zulu(64), long in coming, depicting the events immediately preceding those of the older film and showing how the war with the Zulu nation began. As such, this film has a larger scope than its predecessor, depicting how two nations go to war. Perhaps because of this, it lacks the focus dominating the more exciting Zulu(64), but is an excellent historical war film nonetheless. The British contingent here is much larger, consisting of about 1200 soldiers. The final half hour is just one long running battle, with the Brits firing their rifles, retreating and eventually being overrun. It's a good cast - O'Toole, Simon Ward, Denholm Elliott, Bob Hoskins just before he became fashionable, Ronald Lacey as a reporter (and anti-war voice; he was the villain in Raiders of the Lost Ark), a young Nicholas Clay (pre-Lancelot in Excalibur) and Nigel Davenport in a smaller role. Lancaster is on-hand with a semi Irish accent but his is not the biggest role, as it was in most of his films; he's just one of an ensemble here. Peter Vaughan has possibly the most memorable role as the supply master for the army; in other words, he's in charge of bullets and dispenses them with a rigid authority denoting how superbly British he is at the job. It's a very dark irony that it turns out to be the worst job he could have done in this battle.

John Mills, as the one who nominally sends an ultimatum to the king of the Zulu and declares war, states chillingly at one point that this is the final solution to the "Zulu problem" - calling to mind other such statements in history and an indication of where the writers' sentiments may lie; it also begs the question, would the anti-war slant have been evident if this film were made right after Zulu, in the mid-sixties? The British Empire is obviously the imperialist bully here, imposing its standards on other nations, but then you hear that the Zulu king killed 20,000 of his own people to establish his rule. Are these people no one's business because they're not British people? Questions raised have an uncanny resemblance to world events of only a few years ago, which occurred over 20 years after this film came out. How's that saying..? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I was lucky enough to be working in Pietermaritzburg when this movie was made. The Natal Cricket ground in PMB was used as the army camp and the cricket pavilion was used as HQ. Many of the night shift guys I worked with at The Natal Witness got jobs as background extras in the army scenes .. they told me that the uniforms were badly made and that the jackets had no buttons ... the guns were made of wood ... well it wasn't noticeable in the movie I think. The company that made it, Samarkand, went bust during the filming of the movie and many local contractors never recovered their outlay, particularly the farmers that supplied some of the waggons, etc. This delayed the eventual release of the film. The town was full of Imperial car hire cars during the weeks of filming, was an exciting time in "sleepy hollow". A good movie though, factually correct unlike the original Zulu, thought that was a more enjoyable movie.

"Zulu" (1964) was an absolutely brilliant battle-epic: tightly directed, solidly photographed, well edited, with strong performance from all (including a young Michael Caine). Despite it's violence (more than half the film is the battle), it never lost sight of its primary themes - the remarkable courage of common men, the profound differences between the two cultures in conflict.

"Zulu Dawn" is a weak follow-up. In "Zulu" the characters were richly delineated; in "Zulu Dawn" we never get to know any of them, to the point where we feel little sympathy for them. It is also remarkable that the strongest acting comes from those playing very brief roles as Zulus - the Zulu Chief, the warrior who escapes to fight again, etc. All the white actors look poorly directed. And Burt Lancaster's accent is atrocious.

Beautiful photography, exciting final battle sequence, and an historically accurate narrative that is allowed to unfold its own themes; but too diffusely directed, and ultimately feeling incomplete.

As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.

The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.

Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.

There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.

We waited a long time for the prequel to "Zulu", so eventually we got "Zulu Dawn". It depicts the Battle of Isandhlwana between the British and the Zulus. It turned out to be one of the great disasters the British ever experienced.

The Zulus in this film are accurately depicted as highly disciplined soldiers, and in some ways shows them in a more human way than "Zulu". Historically, it is reasonably accurate - at the time it was filmed. By that I mean, recent scholarship has showed that the assumed reasons for the British problems were really not the case. It wasn't that there were difficulties with ammunition, it was that the rifles were used so much they began to misfire, plus atmospheric conditions degraded visibility contributing to British disaster.

But a fine, entertaining movie filmed on a much bigger scale than "Sulu" was. If you can find it, SEE it. Burt Lancaster was especially good in his role.

The previous film was inaccurately titled Zulu, when it was purely from the invading imperialists' POV. It showed the British invaders as hapless, caught in bad circumstances. It never mentions them being volunteers, nationalists, or believers in their own superiority over the Africans.

On top of that, some of Zulu's history was simply false. The descendants of one character shown as a terrible soldier successfully sued the film maker for smearing his name.

This film is both better and more accurate. Yes, the average British soldier was caught in bad circumstances. But most of the officers are rightly shown as ignorant of the enemy and so contemptuous of them and caught up in a search for glory they get their own men killed needlessly.

Finally, finally, a film shows us Africans and lets them speak instead of making them into faceless evil. You cheer the Zulus defeating the foreign invaders, as you should.

I won't go through the details of the movie, as that has been adequately covered in previous reviews. I found this movie very "Hollywood," with little substance. It cannot hold a candle to the earlier "Zulu."

A side note, from an earlier review: "The main cause for the British disaster is fairly clear in the movie, and that's the method of giving out bullets. Peter Vaughan gives a crafty performance as the quarrelsome quartermaster who demands that each bullet be accounted for at the head office. The niggardly way the bullets were dispersed to the men, who were holding the Zulu back until they ran out of ammunition on the front lines while crates of bullets were held back in the wagons, was the primary cause of the disaster."

That may be the "theatrical" reason for the defeat. However, later research has shown that the Martini-Enfield will seize in relatively short order due to the heat generated by rapid firing. The "held back" ammunition theory, and the "un-openable cartridge crate" theory were both debunked after extensive digging at the site.