"zulu" received highly positive reviews from critics. 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. for certainly the fellows who made it, cy endfield and stanley baker, have done about as nifty a job of realizing on the formula as one could do." "variety" praised the "intelligent screenplay" and "high allround standard of acting," concluding, "high grade technical qualities round off a classy production." richard l. coe of "the washington post" wrote that the film was "in the much-missed tradition of 'beau geste' and 'four feathers.' 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." whitney balliett of "the new yorker" wrote that the film had "not only refurbished all the clichés of the genre but given them the sheen of high style ... it has already been pointed out that 'zulu' is in poor taste. but so are such invaluable relics as g. a. henty and rider haggard and kipling." "the monthly film bulletin" called "zulu" "a typically fashionable war film, paying dutiful lip service to the futility of the slaughter while milking it for thrills. and the battle, which occupies the whole second half of the film, is unquestionably thrilling ... 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."