Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2024, 03:22:16 PM
715552 Posts in 53143 Topics by 7764 Members
Latest Member: Scannertrp Forum  |  Information Exchange  |  Reader Comments  |  Zardoz « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: Zardoz  (Read 162540 times)
« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2004, 03:16:19 PM »

Almost completely terrible--a few moments of unintentional hilarity fail to save it.  Not worth viewing even once.  What the hell happened to science fiction in the 1970s?
« Reply #61 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:03 PM »

The thing is, I get that SF movies are better when theyíre about ideas, and I agree that mainstream SF movies have devolved into nothing more than action movies with a few SF elements, but if youíre going to make an SF movie thatís about ideas and has a message, you need to communicate those ideas and that message.  And youíre not going to do that if the movie doesnít make any damn sense to 90% of the people viewing it.

The other thing is that the movieís idea/message is depressing.  That can be fun in its own way, but in that case itís best kept short, so you can absorb the neatness of the idea without actually having to spend a lot of time dwelling in the depression.

Then, too, I have a particular problem with movies set in a post-apocalyptic future, especially when the one oasis of civilization in that future is (a) portrayed as bad and wrong for being an attempt to stave off the post-apocalyptic wasteland, (b) all low-tech and barbaric-looking, with people in period costumes and slaves in rough-hewn uniforms, and (c) totally fascist and evil, what with its classism, callousness towards suffering, misandry (ďThe penis is evilĒ?  Iím sick of hearing that from mainstream culture), and deliberate attempts to make the outside world a worse place.

I get that all of this was intentional and led to the movieís point--but unfortunately it was at the cost of the movie being watchable.  Thereís not much point in making an intelligent movie with a message if itís so boring, depressing, and confusing that itís unpleasant to watch.  And yes, you *can* be boring *and* confusing at the same time.

Then again, as I say, I have a particular problem with post-apocalyptic wasteland movies.  I also hate westerns, so it resonated well for me when the late Jay Scott said that post-apocalyptic wasteland movies are basically science-fiction westerns.
« Reply #62 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

I have found many of the comments posted here to be both profound and silly.  And that fits with the movie. I beleive that this was the first movie that Sean did after playing Bond, James Bond.  007
One thing that no one had mentioned was that the Vortexes were some kind of space ship. They gathered up the best of their world to save. The Imortality was developed so that they could live to go to the stars.  But that sort of turned into a dead end and they came back home to a ruined planet.  Remeber the starving masses trying to get into the vortex in a flash back.

My favorite concept in the movie was the punisment sentences.  If you were sentenced to 5 years, they aged you 5 years.  A few years here and there adds up. But no matter how old and senial you get, they will not let you die....  In the extream case of the inventer of the tabernical who is bedridden.  All of the original generation has been aged for various infractions and you are dealing with thier children, born to the vortex life.  They are bored. Many of them have committed suicide several times. Remember that you can't die.
They make themselves do some manual work for something to do.  There is food trading between the different vortexes as Zed found out when he first entered.  They are even making the Exterminaters grow wheat for them now instead of just killing people.  Wich sets the stage for Zed to enter the vortex and kill his god.
I am a great fan of the Wizard of OZ.  My current cat owner is named Zardoz.  :)  
Chick Copp
« Reply #63 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

Brilliantly over the top pseudo-intellectual Brit movie, not since he was painted silvery green with bits of trees stuck on his head to play some kind of Green man Godhead thingie in "Sword of the Valiant" has Sean Connery been so valiantly mis-treated by the makeup department. Sean is always held in such high regard by filmophiles, but I have found him to be playing himself, Scotch Git extraordinaire in red loin cloth with braided ponytail wig, or painted green with twigs attached (he produced "Sword of the Valiant" too)  etc....

I saw this on the big screen back in '74, it certainly needs the super sizing of the silver screen, seeing him roughly squeeze a poor Brit actress's boob and her not move a muscle when she must have been a) wishing to knee him in the nuts, or b) shout loud and long for him to desist forthwith!!, is hillarious. John Boorman is definitly of the Ken Russell school of film making, ie pile on the ever more obscure images and pile drive home your psycho sexual messages as hard as you can. I mean just count the number of phallic symbols in Zardoz, I got up to 133 before I got over excited at Charlotte Rampling's nipples poking through her string vest...hubba....hubba!!!

This is best viewed with the knowledge that it is a leftover Dr Who script or something, it is a classic of the you-just-let-it-unfold-before-you variety of Brit movie, our inate feelings of superiority over the rest of the World results in movies like this. Of course you do not understand it Johnny Foreigner! This is intellectual stuff. Just enjoy the mud wrestling and boob squeezing, oucheeeeee....

« Reply #64 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

Mind-bendingly cool.  I tend more towards the horror and fantasy genres than the sci-fi vein, but this opus definitely delivered.  Wildly surreal and clever --love the "Wizard of Oz" reference-- it certainly left me feeling like I'd seen something either insane or profound (like perhaps "El Topo" or "The Holy Mountain").  I don't think I can name another movie like this where a big-name Hollywood male star is so scantily-clad and objectified throughout the entire film's running time.  Connery looks great and the entire cast just salivates over him.  I'd read somewhere that his red loincloth had to replaced on an almost daily basis because someone from the set kept making off with it(!).
« Reply #65 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

Wow, this is one of the most articulate forums I have run across on the internet and no one degenerated in their comments (kudos to the moderator).  I loved Zardoz when I saw it on the big screen in the 70's and I salivated over Sean Connery.  Forget the bare chest look of today...this is a man.  And the movie, to me, is a message of man's limited ability to truly grasp the full consequences of his or her actions no matter how well intentioned.  So when man tries to "play God" and control others, the environment, etc. things can go very wrong.  I found the movie plot fairly easy to follow (after I had seen it a few times to make sure I had actually seen what I thought I had seen and I was past the "jaw-dropped" look) and intricate. However, it is also disjointed with choppy transitions so I would believe this was a "party" movie set.  I also suspect Sean Connery was looking for a role that was vastly different from the James Bond character and this seemed to fit the bill.  Great movie, lots of fun and I will be looking for it on DVD.
« Reply #66 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

This is the original Matrix. Zed/Neo, a superhuman, has to destroy this computer thing that binds everyones minds together. Its the same plot, dude! For all of you people bashing this movie, the only thing that separates it from the Matrix is the special effects. Think about it. The parallels are spooky. I think this may be more an artifact of our fascination with how technology runs rampant and takes over our lives than a deliberate copying of the plot. But if the what-cha-ma-call-it brothers copied Zardoz, like would anyone know? How many people have seen Zardoz, really?

I'll also say that I believe this movie is a comment on the time it was made in. The cultural revolutions of the 60's were burning out. The Vortex people kind of symbolize those freaky, idealistic hippies, that are going to come together (vortex-like) to form these Aquarian communities of like-minded people that are going to create a new world. That was the 60's and everything was going to be good. Then comes the 70's and the disillusionment had set in, the apathy. Hence we have the apathetics, all the hippies finally giving up their love and good will after living in these freaky communes where, in reality, you can't express your feelings necessarilly and be your own self but you have to be enslaved to this group ego/id. So, they all get passive agressive and crush the individuals who act out ("You must go to the second level" and what about that poor dude they put on trial b/c he was p**sed off about having to be nice to everyone?) and gradually the communities self destruct. That's the 70's baby - self destruction. In the 60's we all come together in this communal vortex, everyone gets sucked in together (hence a vortex), and in the 70's we blow it all apart through the darkest side of drug abuse, sex, or finally becoming venture capitalists (like the apathetics finally going wonkers at the end of the movie, having sex, and then killing people). These idealistic communities are basically blown apart. Boorman's film is really a commentary on this happening of those decades: the vortexual pulling in of the 60's, this over identification with everyone else (as in the computer crystal thingy - please everyone else get out of my head!) and then the necessary reaction to that over saturation of community -which is to separate again from others and go back to being an individual. The movie I saw that helped put this all in my head was a documentary about the Weather Underground - the revolutionary student movement that bombed public facilities in the 60's and 70's. Search for it on NetFlix. We're talking dark 60's. I think this is a great movie, but entirely hilarious too! Watch with friends so you can all laugh together.
« Reply #67 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

A film for the imaginative. I wish there were more films that dare to throw as much cerebral content into the pot(plot!).It may just miss out on being an absolute classic due to it's meandering style but it's a sci-fi pageant and who cares if you can't understand all of it.
« Reply #68 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

Truly one of the best op the bad movies.  It's Sean Connery's "Barbarella"!
« Reply #69 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

The movie lacked just a little from making it really good. I'm still trying to figure out all the details. A little dated in the English hippy era. Lots of nice, soft English girl breasts. "Planet of the Apes" crossed with "The Trip"
« Reply #70 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

If Zardoz is such bad movie why do so many devote so much time talking about it.  If not for the vocabulary of ideaz given to you by lord Zardoz it is likely you'd be discussing jackass or some other inanity.  You've been bred and led yourself!
Steven Jackson
« Reply #71 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

I agree with the brutal I think we've all been used, re-used abused and amused!! There is something cool about zardoz, my fav part is of course the famous 'the gun is good' (watch for the guy who nearly falls over).
« Reply #72 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

A true horror classic!  If you think this movie was bad, you should have seen it when it was originally released on the big screen and via the haze of a cannabis high.  I'm still suffering from the after affects. . . it was downright scary!  
Steven Jackson
« Reply #73 on: November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM »

A truely 'zen' amazing film, one would argue a typical Boorman film. This movie emplifies a future society in choas and distress, the question in this movie is whether zardoz is really the hero of the film? His messages of distruction could be reflected in today's society. Are we using the penis as a symbol of male dominance in an otherwise unstable level of society and humanity? Could he have been implying the future distruction of humanity through the man or aka the penis? Arthur Fray was argubaly the villian, although again I had to watch the film twice to feel almost pity for his imortal state, the fool, did he think we would feel pity?!! Zardoz will rise again...    
« Reply #74 on: November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM »

GREAT MOVIE! They don't make them like they used to. Anything involving a giant flying stone head, sean connery hurling a woman through the air, weird sexual conotations, fishnet rape, wizard of oz manipulation and lots of boobies!...that's the movie for me!

How can you watch a movie called "ZARDOZ" with sean connery on the cover wearing red speedos and a long braid down his back and be offended that it was "weird", or "cheesy" or "didn't make sense". C'mon, get real. This is a brilliant/sometimes silly cult sci-fi flick from the 70's. Rediculous and entertaining in all it's glory! Accept it for what it is going in and you will love this movie.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Forum  |  Information Exchange  |  Reader Comments  |  Zardoz « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email

    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os∑mo∑sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.