Zardoz

John Boorman's stylish sci-fi silliness about a bizarre future where a flying head named Zardoz is worshipped as a god, and people are divided into two factions, immortals and mortals. Sean Connery stars as Zed, a ponytailed mortal "exterminator" who runs around in a skimpy red outfit that has to be seen to be believed. He kills the man behind Zardoz (the wiZARD of OZ - that's cute) and finds himself transported to the place where the immortals hang out.

Lots of trippy ideas and visuals, which is the main selling point of this movie for many. But it's hard to take any of it seriously and the whole thing is dripping with pretentiousness. Connery does fine attempting to take his absurd role seriously but the best part of the cast is Charlotte Rampling, who actually made me forget I was watching nonsense for a bit. It's worth watching at least once, for the interesting imagery and the unintended laughs. There aren't any other movies quite like it and seeing Sean Connery in that outfit is enough to give anyone a case of the giggles.

This movie is truly awful, but at the same time it's got to be one of the BEST SCI-FI MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN!

There are so many concepts to digest: Civilization's end, immortality, genetic manipulation, artificial intelligence, time control, psychic power, space travel, and on and on and on. If you're the least bit interested in science-fiction, there's more for you in this one movie than you'll find in a year's worth of Star Trek conventions!

Then why do I say it's awful? Well, within this movie's running time are some of the most cheesy moments ever captured on celluloid!

From the opening shots of the hairy-backed, leather-thonged, gun-toting Sean Connery (who at least manages to wear more than most of the rest of the cast), to the catch-cry of the Giant Hovering Stone Head ("The gun is good! The penis is bad!"), as it spews out a torrent of weapons and ammo from its mouth. What about the Eternal's predilection for studying erectile tissue function, by flashing up images of naked mud-wrestling? Or that crazy "wobbling-hands" thing that they do when in some sort of telepathic communion? Completely laughable!

Despite these moments of "cheesy-ness", Zardoz tells an utterly engaging and compelling story. The moment of revelation of the meaning of "Zardoz" took me completely by surprise, even though all the clues had been under my nose right from the beginning! (The Magritte painting "La chateau des Pyrenees", hanging in Frank's house, reminiscent of the hovering stone head, for example.)

If you like hard-core science fiction, and can put up with a few minor flaws, then I think you'll really enjoy Zardoz! It's weird, it's brilliant, it's unique! (Just make sure you watch it while you're wide awake, though, or you may drift off from time to time!)

9 out of 10!

jon :-)

I read that Boorman woke from a dream with the entire film whole in his head, as opposed to, say, Terminator, which started out as one scene(rising from the flames and advancing once again) and was written in both directions. Zardoz was a last gasp of the 60's and had flaws, but it is so unique a vision that it still stands out artistically. Most sci-fi film is marred by the same problem: avid older readers have seen these ideas since the 30's and not much can improve on a good idea, so all that's left is to pile on more special effects. The only film I still use as a benchmark is Forbidden Planet. But Boorman had James Bond in a diaper, the incredible Charlotte Rampling, minimal effects, nudity and attitude to bring this solid-sender to you. 7/10

This movie came out when I graduated from high school and I first viewed it with the awe and admiration of a young man seeking intriguing concepts of what the future might be like. Zardoz did not disappoint me. The question of what would happen to mankind if all our physical needs were met and we were thereby allowed to expand intellectually is fascinating. We are constantly striving to make life easier, better and to live longer. Do we really need a struggle to exist or is it merely a leftover animalistic aspect of our evolution? Personally I like living in a climate controlled surrounding versus a cave where I have to kill something with my bare hands in order to eat. For what it's worth, I saw it again as a middle aged adult and I am still impressed with some of the concepts of the movie. My 13 year old daughter was not so much impressed. I'd still give it a good review and wouldn't mind owning it for my personal collection. I guess it takes a sci-fi geek to not be so bored with it and, of course, a bare breast thrown in gets my attention just as it did back in 1974.

There seem to be a lot of people who didn't like this film. I loved it. It is a film for people who aren't perturbed by a lack of surface glitz in science fiction, and can take on the underlying meanings about immortality or the fear of death that other films rarely raise. Some of it doesn't make sense, but only if you are not paying attention. In my view, it gets straight to the point without any polish, which some people are uncomfortable about in any artform. It is not made for Star Trek fans. It is a bleak and powerful story about a cabal of ineffectual immortals who play God to an inferior but more vigourous race, and who long for death yet cannot die. They stealthily invite one of these inferiors (Connery) into their midst to solve their problems. The final scenes are extremely striking, and are set to the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony. **You just don't hear this symphony enough in the movies***. I recommend this film to anyone who likes science fiction with a small sf.