# Zardoz (1973)



## Dave (Mar 24, 2001)

Zardoz (1973) 105 Minutes.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0070948

Directed by John Boorman.

Life in 2293, when the Earth has become wasteland, and a mass of uncivilised Brutals, who worship the stone head of Zardoz, are ruled by a few Exterminators who have both memory and intelligence, but are subject to a plague which sends them catatonic. Halliwells calls it a pompous fantasy for the so-called intelligensia. It is certainly very boring. I only continued to watch it because I had read that there was a startling revelation at the end, about who Zardoz is, and what his name means. Well, here's a little clue - I can tell you that it's not worth the wait to the end, unless you "could while away the flowers, conversin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain."

With Sean Connery, Charlotte Rampling, John Alderton


----------



## Koala (Oct 6, 2001)

*what a waste*

Is it just me, or did almost all of the sci-fi during this period suck?  Barbarella, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Outland, too manyu others to mention.  Were all the producers and writers just worried about making social commentary movies with minimal action and rather strange scenery?  THere were others during this time that were ok, and not all social commentary movies were bad.  It just seems that some of these movies ignored everything except some basic social message.  They left out dialog, action, production, and sometimes had a stroyline only worthy of a beginning high school writer.

Movies like this show why we had to turn to drugs for entertainment back then.  There wasn't much in the theatres or on tv.


----------



## Stryker (Nov 16, 2004)

*Simply Awful movie*

I watched this movie and fell asleep the first 2 times.

I bet Sean Connery is even ashamed of this one.

I would call this movie in southern terms 
    "Corn-Pone"


            :dead: :dead: 

You had to turn to something to forget movies like this.


Stryker


----------



## Dave (Mar 9, 2005)

*Re: what a waste*



> _Originally posted by Koala _
> *Were all the producers and writers just worried about making social commentary movies with minimal action and rather strange scenery?*


You know it could have been the strange substances they were taking!


----------



## Waziwig (Apr 22, 2009)

*Zardoz*

Has anyone seen it?  I have never met anyone who trie to watch it, let alone like it.  It would never be made now, I suppose, but I could watch it again and again!


----------



## dask (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I saw it at the theatre a long time ago and, well, didn't like it very much. Not even the use of Beethoven's seventh helped much. Perhaps, after DELIVERANCE, I expected too much.


----------



## Waziwig (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I tealise that it is VERY seventies, with a lot of post-hippie themes, its weirdness factor is so strong that it could have been written by Morcock.!


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

This is the Sean Connery, guns-spewing-from-god's-mouth thing? I only ever saw a brief clip from it, probably about twenty years ago. It's obviously really stuck with me, but I've never been tempted to watch it when I've seen it was on.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

Weeeellll.... It's an odd film; seriously flawed in some ways; yet a fascinating film when you actually sit through it. The first time one may feel quite confused and very much "at sea"; a second viewing allows everything to fall into place, and even much of the wonkiness works to the film's advantage.

I've seen *Zardoz* probably 4 or 5 times (I really ought to go ahead and buy a copy of the darned thing), and my liking for it improves with each viewing. Definitely a film requiring some thinking through and a willingness to "go with the flow" the first time. It's a bit of a difficult film to get into; yet I think it's worth the effort. But, again, I'd advise just sort of letting yourself experience the thing the first time around, giving yourself a little time to mull it over afterward, then watching it again, before forming your opinion on it....


----------



## The Ace (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

And there are topless women in it.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*



The Ace said:


> And there are topless women in it.


 
LOL.... Um, yes, there _is_ that....


----------



## Waziwig (Apr 22, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

... really ....


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Apr 23, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

*Loved the movie, Zardoz, when I first saw it on TV.  I thought the whole story made sense until that last five minutes with the hand print on the rock.  It didn't make sense at that time.  You know why?  That's 'cuz it was edited for television.  The TV people butchered it and left out a lot of stuff.  So, I watched the film version with all the butchered scenes brought back in.  Made a lot of sense along with the hand print.  Still loved that movie with Sean Connery, directed by John Boorman.*

*This Boorman fella is very eclectic.  Some of his films are good and others are dreadful.  Don't get me started on Exorcist II: the Heretic. *


----------



## Waziwig (Apr 23, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I'm really surprised that its not a cult movie!  I mean, some people go gooey in memory of *Logan's Run*, (hey, I like that too) and other movies from the seventies, but this one seems to have made a plop rather than a splash!  It will probably be on telly again soon, hope I've prodded a few peopleto make the effort!


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 23, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*



brsrkrkomdy said:


> *This Boorman fella is very eclectic. Some of his films are good and others are dreadful. Don't get me started on Exorcist II: the Heretic. *


 
Errrr... which version of *Exorcist II*? I've seen at least three (quite different) versions of that film....


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 23, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*



brsrkrkomdy said:


> * The TV people butchered it and left out a lot of stuff.*


 
I've only ever seen the film on TV, though in the UK; I suppose that may mean I've seen the complete film.

And it may explain why I didn't find Zardoz _that_ hard to comprehend over all, although individual scenes were somewhat confusing on first viewing.


----------



## Waziwig (Apr 24, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I've just watched the trailer, I haven't actually seen it for a couple of years, but okay, it is a bit weird.

YouTube - Trailer for Zardoz (1974)

I bet this doesn't work!


----------



## littlemissattitude (Apr 25, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I saw this when it first came out in the theaters, and I have to say that I really didn't like it at all.  Maybe another viewing would improve matters, as you suggest, j.d., but I'm really hesitant to even try that, as my memories of it are just too awful.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 25, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*



littlemissattitude said:


> I saw this when it first came out in the theaters, and I have to say that I really didn't like it at all. Maybe another viewing would improve matters, as you suggest, j.d., but I'm really hesitant to even try that, as my memories of it are just too awful.


 
This is definitely a film which is not going to be to everyone's taste -- or even the majority of viewers', I think -- nor is it entirely successful in what it attempts... but for myself, I'd say it's a much better film than it is often given credit for being, and certainly a more complex and thought-provoking film than the bulk of sf films out there.

The problem is that Boorman's visions in all his films are (seemingly, at any rate) so thoroughly wrapped up in his own personal symbolism, that it can be very opaque to many people.

I've been looking this one up, and I'm rather glad I came to it entirely on my own, as it allowed for no preconceptions to bias my views on it. As a result, it's a film I can watch with a great deal of pleasure and intellectual stimulation; but I can easily see where a great many will find it boring, confusing, or both....

Incidentally, Wiki has an interesting entry on it, which explicates much of what is obscure or confusing rather well:

Zardoz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I have to be honest and say that I think it fits in very nicely as a science-fiction film, as it is exactly the sort of speculative storytelling sf does best -- and it also fits in well with the New Wave movement, in many ways....


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 26, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

Man I haven't seen this film in years! Tis a strange one,kinda science fantasy weirdness. I enjoyed it apart from its inherent 70s ness. Thats the only trouble with older films,they tend to smell strongly of the era they were made and so a new generation watching it now for the first time will be like What the hell is this? (Logan's Run is another)I think thats one of the reasons films get remade,to try to appeal to a new audience. But they shouldn't.


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 26, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

I saw the movie on one of the movie channels in the early eighties and just have vague impressions of it. After seeing the trailer off the Youtube link, I apparently need to see it again. I suprised noone had mentioned what the name is a bastardization of. _ _ Z A R D _  _ OZ.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Apr 27, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

Okay.  I went and read the Wikipedia article you linked, j.d., and I'll concede that perhaps I need to see this one again.  I still feel a little squicky about it, but the explanation there did pique my interest.

One of the things that bothered me about the whole experience of seeing the film when it first came out was that I totally didn't get the Oz connection.  Also, obviously, there were some things that went over my 17-year-old head when I saw it the first time.

So, if I run across it, I might give it another try.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 27, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

Yes, that was one of the more strange touches (yet very much a traditional sort of reference in sf, even before the Golden Age): the use of that gigantic head and "Oz the Great and Terrible"... something Stephen King used in a somewhat different (but equally quirky) way in *Pet Sematary*....


----------



## littlemissattitude (Apr 27, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*



j. d. worthington said:


> Yes, that was one of the more strange touches (yet very much a traditional sort of reference in sf, even before the Golden Age): the use of that gigantic head and "Oz the Great and Terrible"... something Stephen King used in a somewhat different (but equally quirky) way in *Pet Sematary*....



Now I"m going to have to go back and read *Pet Semetary* again, because I really don't remember that.  Then again, I spent a lot of time while I was reading that book being really ticked off at King because I felt like he was playing with my emotions unfairly.  In fact, I nearly didn't finish it at the time, I was so upset with it and with him.


----------



## CBellenis (Apr 27, 2009)

*Re: Zardoz*

Like a few others I loved it when it came out (And it established Beethoven's 7th as one of my 'desert island discs).

Saw it on TV again more recently...and wondered if I might have been a bit on the pretentious side to have enjoyed it so much back then (but aren't many teenagers?).  My advice to anyone not gripped in the 70s is not to try again - it really is of it's time


----------

