Zardoz is a film that defies explanation. It’s as if Tommy Wiseau decided to make a fantasy movie. It’s just bonkers in so many ways and yet it has an unexplainable charm all it’s own “Oh hi Sean”
I really disagree with this statement (well I agree that its a humorous statement) but it actually takes a lot of skill to pull off the trippy, deliberately off-kilter rule-breaking style of filmmaking we see in Zardoz. Only a director of the caliber of John Boorman (who is in my opinion a genius) can walk the fine line this film treads on. It is 99% of the way to being an incoherent farce but that 1% that holds it together is something only a very gifted director could have achieved.
Thank you! That’s honestly quite a compliment and I very much appreciate it. I know I’m inclined to poke fun here and there so I’m happy to hear it doesn’t come across as disrespectful.
Calvin is the kind of positive RU-vid reviewer that's sorely needed. I think it's a forgotten art to criticise something in a measured, humourous and well meaning manner, without being nasty about it.
I saw this in theaters when it came out in 1974 . As the people were leaving the theater I heard a couple say "Let's not tell anyone we saw this movie". I think watching this movie was more trippy than watching 2001 and Clock Orange together on acid could ever have been.
My favorite Zardoz story; going to see it again years later at a revival theatre in L.A. - about midway through during a kaleidoscopic scene the films started to burn in the projector and for a few brief moments the audience thought it was just another effect until the screen went white.
John Boorman wanted to make “Lord of the Rings” but the studios thought it would be too expensive to make so he came up with this film instead. Ironically Peter Jackson wanted Sean Connery to star in “Lord of the Rings” but declined because Connery didn’t understand the story. Love your RU-vid videos very informative and entertaining
Like you said, this was a film I knew of by reputation long before I actually watched it: Connery’s outfit and the giant floating head. To quote Crow T. Robot from MST3K: “No matter what’s gone wrong with his life, Neil Connery can always look in the mirror and say to himself ‘Well, at least I didn’t do Zardoz’”. Watching it, I found it hard to believe it was a film actually funded by a major American studio - it felt more like some Spanish, Italian or Mexican art house film from the depths of the _1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die_ book. I also found it hard to believe it was an original screenplay, it felt like it had been adapted from a book by some 1960s counterculture author. That being said, it very much feels like a pre-Star Wars 70s sci-fi film. Between 2001 and SW the genre did go in some strange directions, and this has the same kind of mood as films like Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, and the Planet of the Apes sequels. But did I like it though? Yes, I did. Perhaps not love, though. But hey, I much prefer it when a film goes weird and wonderful than plain and humdrum. I did think it was a little pretentious at times, but not so much as to be unbearable. Certainly its strange energy meant it was always entertaining. Would I watch it again? If somewhere like the Princes Charles Cinema had a screening I’d go - this is definitely a film that is enhanced by the big screen experience - but I don’t think it’s a film that’s going to be one I watch over and over again at home. I’m glad I watched it though, and I can easily understand why someone would want to watch it again and again. So I disagree with Mr Crow - I don’t think this is a blot on Connery’s filmography. That being said: why was Sean dressed like that? It’s certainly an… _interesting_ costume choice. Do you think John Boorman specified it in the script? I can easily picture the lackey standing off-camera in the Irish mountains ready to cover Connery in a foil blanket the second Boorman said cut!
Sounds like we had very similar reactions to the film. I'd love to see it with an audience too, hear what people react to etc! The PCC would be an ideal place for it.
@@calvindyson You should consider doing a review The Hill if you haven't seen it already, it's in my opinion one of Connery's best non-Bond roles. It also has a few Bond connections in that there was an actor named Ian Hendry in it who was also in the Casino Royale Spoof, and the cinematographer also did The Man With The Golden Gun.
Zardoz I unironically declare to be awesome, and always thought so. I'm glad to see someone not just doing a cheap "shooting fish in a barrel" snarky take. I consider that the purview of people with lazy critical acumen and a lack of film history knowledge.
Why does no one ever talk about how impressive Sean Connery’s handlebar mustaches is in this movie? That thing gives Bert Reynolds mustache a run for it’s money in manly coolness
Connery *really* wanted to shed his Bond image post DAD… with “Zardoz”, he almost succeeded… almost. John Boorman certainly has a diverse filmography to say the least… “Point Blank”, “Deliverance”, “Zardoz”, “Exorcist II: The Heretic”, “Excalibur”, “Beyond Rangoon”, and even “The Tailor of Panama” with fellow 007 Brosnan
I hope Calvin covers The Tailor Of Panama. It's a fantastic Pierce showcase (kind of a spoof of his Bond, made in between Bond films), a great spy romp/espionage/political satire, and really funny.
THX-1138, The Bed Sitting Room, Soylent Green, Silent Running, Logan's Run and Zardoz were how "Sci-Fi" movies were in the early 1970s before Star Wars changed out perspective forever.
Outland (1981) is another sci-fi he did. I thought it was pretty solid. Some fun (emphasis on fun) fan theories out there connect it to the Alien universe.
The creators clearly left enough room open for them to be in the same universe but as they could get no rights to Alien it's strictly head canon. I'd love it if the rights could be consolidated and it was retro-actively made canon.
Saw Outland myself when I was a teenager. I am big Science Fiction fan and despite the low budget of the movie, I quite enjoyed for what it was. As Calvin pointed out at the start of the video Sean Connery did have a very diverse filmography besides James Bond and all of his action roles. I am looking forward to seeing more of his his movies in the near future.
I went through a similar experience while stoned off my tits, watching The Who in "Tommy", directed by Ken Russell. Absolutely bat-shit mental. So, I watched it again years later, without the aid of recreational drugs. Still mental. The scene with the baked beans somehow made even less sense.
This is a fantastic 70's curio. A fever dream of a film that could only have been made in its era. A film that could only have been made by John Boorman. It is unlike anything else. The genre Zardoz is in is, well, Zardoz.
@@calvindyson In the U.S. this was rated R (restricted), meaning you had to bee accompanied by your parents if you were younger than 17. I could pass for 17, so nobody at the theater asked me any questions. I saw it in the theater. The movie wasn't especially well attended at the showing I was at.
I read that John Boorman [Deliverance and Charlie's dad] wanted to do a Lord of the Rings adaptation but couldn't get the rights so created Zardoz instead.
Yes. Boorman went to Ireland to scout locations for LOTR. After UA said no (budget requirements, condensing three books into one film), Boorman was so taken with the vistas that he not only wrote Zardoz and filmed it there, but made the place his home (it still is). He later filmed Excalibur there, and that's inspired by aspects of his ideas, visuals and locations for LOTR.
There was a lot of experimentation with movies in that era. Often times, as in Zardoz, the movies are apparently trying to say something but it's done in a roundabout way. It's like the person who when asked a question goes on for 2 minutes when a "yes" or "no" answer would do. The question is was the statement worth a full length movie?
I watched this in Discord with a group of friends, we drank A LOT that night... I agree that it sticks with you for a long time, really glad you reviewed this one, a fascinating film hilarity aside.
This video was a nice birthday present for me. I love Zardoz! And it makes a very refreshing change to hear someone on RU-vid not say it was the worst thing ever.
For me it is a very ambitious failure. Indeed, the sheer scope of ideas and concepts it is trying to cram into a single film is one of its biggest shortcomings. An interesting watch all the same. I think the tone is supposed to be 100% serious. I love Boorman's work, Hell In The Pacific, Point Blank, Deliverance and Excalibur are brilliant. No doubt you have The Tailor Of Panama down to review, interesting as Brosnan starred in it during his Bond career, rather than after.
Rivaled only by tHE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH with Bowie, ZARDOZ is the most complex, boldest sci-fi film for intelligent adults after Kubrick's 2001 and I admit it can be unintentionally funny, but like a Kubrick film, if you are laughing, you may be missing key points. It is also the greatest risk Connery ever took in his career and though disorienting to more than a few people, this post-modern look at life, death, sex, masculinity and civilization does have all of its ins and outs working. The supporting cast is great and the cinematography is a remarkable use of widescreen Panavision. Like the bowie film, many, many more people need to take it on and discuss it. Your video is one fo the best pieces of coverage I have seen on the film since its release.
@@calvindyson I think Connery was just in a 'try anything' mood at the time given he also did the western 'Shalako' as a Scottish Cowboy after he left Bond!
@@mrcritical6751 I'm sure they could have explained it to him in a way he could understand. Ian McKellen was such a LOTR fan he had a copy of the book in a pocket in his costume at all times so that worked out for the better.
I, for one, would love to see a Zardoz reboot - but more like a total reimagining of the core concept, in the style of what Luca Guadagnino recently did with his version of Suspiria. Someone like Jacques Audiard, Julia Ducournau, or Brandon Cronenberg could add some fascinating insights to the source material - with a soundtrack by Fever Ray, Lingua Ignota, or one of the Radiohead guys. And I wouldn't mind Tom Hardy in the main role, with Alicia Vikander replacing Charlotte Rampling.
Weirdest Roger Moore role is either his cameo as a Blofeld style villain in the Spice Girls film, or as a camp Boat Captain in 'Boat Trip' with Cuba Gooding Jr.!
Wow I've never clicked on a video so quickly. That thumbnail 😂 I've honestly never heard of this film and was very pleased to find out that I now have a bonkers sci fi film with Sean Connery to watch.
Kudos for going for a relatively sober analysis instead the WTF? approach taken by most RU-vidrs. I'm not the biggest Zardoz fan but there are some interesting ideas at work there. Sort of a compendium of late Sixties/early Seventies countercultural pseudo -philosophical ideas that unintentionally (?) exposes them for the load of old tripe they are. Ten years ago John Boorman was prepping a mo-cap 'psychological' re-imagining of TheWizard of Oz that seemingly came to naught. We probably dodged a bullet there.
@@calvindyson Apparently it was going to be fully computer animated. Despite Boorman having no experience in animation, aside from helping to fund Don Bluth's studio in the Nineties. I can recall an interview where Boorman mentioned his version was going to be deeply psychological and tied to Dorothy's maturation into womanhood. Whatever that entails... Boorman seems to have had a long-standing fascination with the Oz books.
"Hey we want to die! What's the trick?" LMAO! Sean Connery was wearing lady shoes in the last part of the movie when he was running around inside the room of mirrors... LOL!
I've seen Zardoz many times, including it's original theatrical release in 1974. A few dull moments, but overall a terrific film and I would watch it again.
Review ‘Time Bandits’ next that’s my favourite Sean Connery film, in fact it’s my favourite film of all time 😂 Plus the story behind his casting is very funny
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember being, at turns, amused and baffled. Your observation about the tone is spot-on, I think - it's consistent, but impenetrable. One has to admire Connery for being fully invested in the project.
That same year (1974), Connery did another film, called the Terrorists AKA Ransom, a much more "meat and potatoes" type of film, involving hijackers in Norway (Connery obviously plays the good guy). The bad guy, though, is played by a very young Ian McShane, who gives Connery a run for his money performance-wise. It's not a bad crime thriller, just mentioned it because of what you said about Connery having a very eclectic filmography. The guy really played every character imaginable ! RIP Sean Connery
Watched this at the cinema when it first came out and it stuck in my brain. I would often mention it to friends who'd never heard of Zardoz and it seem to disappear from the collective movie going consciousness and was never mentioned at all in retrospectives. So odd that it has now re-surfaced after all this time, feels like a part of my youth has returned to haunt me.
I hope you will review Robin and Mariana, Calvin. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in story of Robin Hood, both iconic actors at the low ebb of their careers, and movie isn't bad, it is actually quite interesting take on Robin Hood mythos. I am big fan of Audrey Hepburn, that is how I came around to it, and her and Connery work really well together.
Nearly forty years ago, a friend and I watched "Zardoz" and thought it somewhat entertaining. Then again, he and I shared a case of beer during the viewing, so...
Hi, have you seen Sean Connery's performance in Murder on the Orient Express? It's currently on the BBC iPlayer. He really only has one lengthy scene, but it's a powerful/funny one in which he brings out his character's contradictions. Apparently he earned more money by doing this film than any of the other actors (he was paid a percentage)
Having grown up with Connery's Bond - I'm part of the ABC Sunday Night Movie generation - I was always happy to watch any movie starring Connery. I first saw Zardoz in my late teens, though it was pretentious, incoherent crap, and more or less relegated it to my mental file on bad movies. Skip ahead by twenty years and I see it again, this time absorbing its weirdness and getting with its concepts. Since then I have been an active advocate for the uninitiated to see the film, even if only just to experience it. I am now in my mid-fifties and I love it for the strange, febrile beast that it is. I would not change a single thing about it.
Holly [named in a homage to HAL from 2001] was originally going to just be a voice [like 'mother' in Alien] but Norman Lovett wanted to be shown on camera-hence the Zardoz homage!
"Zardoz" isn't a bad movie; just a deeply, deeply weird one. I agree with those recommending "Outland", and I'd also recommend the heist movie "The Anderson Tapes" and the Agatha Christie classic "Murder on the Orient Express" for other fine Connery movies.
And then the director tried to regain his commercial standing by making the sequel to The Exorcist. Sensible plan. Except you can tell it's from the director of Zardoz.
I found this movie in college due to the webley fosbery. There aren't many forms of entertainment that depicted the revolver. Actually the revolver has just as many scenes as Sean Connery it appears. I demand more scenes from Foster the fosbery! He always had the best lines lol. Great review by the way I really like your bond reviews, And I know I'm on the low end of the spectrum but, the man with the golden gun IS the best bond film!
Please review these films which also starred Mr Connery, when you have the time: Marnie, Outland, Robin and Marion, Shalako, The Anderson Tapes, The Hill, The Molly Maguires and The Offence.
Zardoz has a bit of a cult following of it's own outside of the Bond universe It lives with me because I saw it on TV when I was a kid and I found it a bit disturbing and not just because Sean wears a red nappy. I watched it again when I was going through all of Connerys films years later and it didn't work for me I don't think the technology was there to pull off the things the director was trying for and it all looks bit dated and comical. Credit to you for giving it a fair review Connery was brave but I always thought..he quit James Bond to make this and other average films from this period?! I get he wanted to do other things and there were some films that are a must watch. Like The Great Train Robbery, The Man Who Would Be King, The Name of The Rose. Zardoz isn't a must watch for me but I get that some people dig it. Can you imagine Burt Reynolds in that film now that would have been a comedy. At least Sean could pull of the nappy.
5:28 Max and Paddy in Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights discussing Connery films and if he wears a wig: Max: Highlander-Wig! Highlander 2: The Quickening-Wig! What was that mad one where he got his c**k out? Paddy: Zardoz Max: Wig!
This low budget film's reach definitely exceeded its grasp, but it still beats most superhero movies. Speaking as a member of the generation that grew up learning to ignore the wobbly sets and dodgy effects of Doctor Who and Blake's Seven, I find it easy to ignore Zardoz's many production compromises and failings. But I fully realise that for most people it's hard to get past things like the red Mankini, the hippie aesthetic, the pretentious dialogue, and the dated sexual politics. So few films try to deal with the distant future in interesting ways, that I won't criticise a film for trying and (mostly) failing.
@@MrPlannery He was also one of the prisoners on the convict planet in Alien 3! (It was on tv last night and It was the first time I noticed him in it and made the connection)
@@nicknewman7848well, I had to wiki him. He's been a guest actor on many a mediocre BBC drama, but also Hellraiser ("dinner guest") and The Professionals. Speaking of Hellraiser, 'Pinhead' (Douglas Bradley) pops up in various BBC dramas too.
It's a John Boorman film so it'll be interesting, be it good or bad. Even Exorcist 2 is fascinating, albeit in a 'what the hell have you done?' kind of way.
As far as I know, "Outland" from 1981 is the only other true Sci-fi Film Connery did and it is far more conventional stuff. Damn good and kinda overlooked flick, too, a hidden gem in my book.
Well, he didn't understand those books, whereas for this one, they were like "you're a rapist that doesn't understand civilized mores," and he was like "oh, sure, that I can do."
Boorman is a genius, I know that Zardoz is a very odd movie and the people often makes fun of it but I love it because is very unique and Connery gave a great interpretation of Zed, when a movie doesn't look like to others usually is a fascinaing movie and I think this is the case.
I unapologetically enjoy ZardOz. After several viewings, I still can't figure out if the movie thinks it's smarter than it is. Without question, John boorman is smarter than me. It's a brave movie that tried to do brave things. I can't say that this movie is good but it is memorable.
In Germany the Synchronactor for Sean Connery also did the Voice for William Shatner in Star Trek. In a way for me as a german Sean Connery and Sci Fi will always have a conection somehow.
When I saw this in my late teens I thought it was pretentious crap, but having bought the Arrow blu-ray last year as a man in his late (very late) 50s I quite enjoyed it. I applaud Boorman for having the balls to make and for a studio to green light it. Can’t imagine any studio these days having the guts to finance anything so out there! Nice review, refreshing to hear something positive about it. And yes bits of it are hilarious, but the floating head is one of the most impressive special effects in 70s sci-fi.
I've never seen this and now I'm more than a little curious to watch it! Over the last few years, I've felt that after Diamonds are Forever, Connery really wasn't in much of anything of note, save for Zardoz and it seems like Never Say Never Again may have actually rejuvenated his later career which is weird to think because he went unto The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and The Hunt for Red October. It's really hard to ever really think of Connery in something like this.
Between Diamonds and Never, he had a small 'golden period' in the mid-70's with 'Man who would be king', 'Wind and the Lion' and 'Robin and Marion' while 'Outland' and 'Great Train Robbery' have there fans.
After taking a break post Never [more due to exhaustion at the troubled production as it was a hit], Connery relaunched himself with Highlander and 'In the name of the Rose' [which he won a BAFTA] which established him as a mentor/elder statesman in movies.
@@jamesatkinsonja Admittedly, I've never really seen any Connery films from the 70s save for DAF so I can't really say on how they are overall but it feels like that time in his filmography is a bit overlooked and it wasn't until the mid 80s when it seemed like he got a second wind in terms of notable roles. I will definitely have to seek those out and give them a watch.
I honestly didn't know John Borman directed this and was his follow up to Deliverance to boot! Zardox occurred during that wonderful pre Star Wars/blockbuster time in the 70s where sci fi films contained an allegory of modern times. I love them. Zardox isn't the best example of these type of films by a long shot, but is a satisfyingly odd and sometimes entertaining film nonetheless.
