Ten Reasons Why Zardoz is a Cinematic Mess

Dada Debaser made the terrible mistake of revisiting John Boorman's infamous Zardoz (1974) recently, with the naive hope it might have improved over the years. Sadly, it's still a convoluted and incoherent dung heap, but that doesn't stop habitual drug users and film contrarians hailing it as a misunderstood masterpiece whenever underrated sciene fiction films are discussed. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I guess. Personally, I'm thankful George Lucas came along and changed the game for us folk looking for proper entertainment and escapism.

Here are ten reasons why I consider Zardoz ostentatious bilge and why it will never be included in any forthcoming Best British Films list from me - like anything I've seen by Mike Leigh:

1. Allegedly, John Boorman was as high as a kite when he wrote, produced and directed the film. It becomes evident very early on that the film is an exercise of style over execution. Various sections of Zardoz are so inpenetratable that even Boorman admitted he didn't totally understand parts of the film. So why are we meant to bother with it then?
   
2. Desperate for work and to shake off any James Bond style typecasting, Sean Connery felt comfortable enough to wear a red loincloth and thigh high boots for the majority of the film, but for this humble film blogger, it's a laughable eye sore. So ridiculous in fact, that any potential prospect in taking the film remotely seriously for one iota of a second is completely lost on me. The film's costume designer was Christel Kruse Boorman, none other than John Boorman's wife; whose only other film is another of Boorman's films, The Emerald Forest (1985). Reeks of cronyism to me.
   
3. Connery went a step even further than his proto-mankini, which Borat ended up nicking, by a wearing a wedding dress in one scene. It's an example of the film's obvious attempt at humour, but I guess you really had to be there to find it funny.
4. Zardoz's whole "the gun is good; the penis is evil" speech makes next to no sense since his acolytes, the Exterminators are raping the Brutals and are descendents of them.
   
5. Charlotte Rampling is the go to actress when it comes to casting a posh lass in challenging or controversial cinema; to the point she's still starring in them today, however even her talents can't shrug off the obvious tripe she has to put up with in Zardoz, such as all the phallus talk and making Zed (Connery) watch porn and checking to see if he's gotten a boner.
   
6. With the exception of Victor Bueno and Silly Kid, fake god, Zardoz, aka Arthur Frayn has the most punchable face ever. At the behest of 20th Century Fox to make the film make any real coherent sense, Boorman includes a prologue which fails miserably at expaining anything.
   
7. The Eternals are meant to be telekinetic ruling class blessed with immortality, with a penchent for green baguettes. Obviously inspired by H.G. Wells' Eloi from The Time Machine in terms of futuristic flower power children living in a communal paradise. However, they're more theoretically a hybrid of the mutant humans with psychic powers from Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970) and the pretentious hippies from the Rainbow Rhythms dance class featured in Peep Show (2003-2015). The Eternals are an even greater sum of these parts since they're way more vexing, cruel and pretentious making them hard to tolerate throughout the entirety of the film.
8. The Tabernacle's use of levity is so poorly executed that it ruins any potential to take the film seriously. Zed (Connery) attempts to make sense of the world he inhabits, but the Tabernacle delivers awful lines like, "You have penetrated me. There is no escape. You are within me. Come into my center. Come into the center of the crystal!".
   
9. Zardoz's influence is cancerous to other film makers. That bloke Ben Wheatley, who reminds me of Heather Trott who used to be in Eastenders, is a big fan of Zardoz. That explains a lot, since he's been delving into pretentious tosh for a decade now and hasn't delivered a good film since Sightseers (2012). Ironically, Boorman has three good movies and one semi decent one - Point Blank (1967), Hell in the Pacific (1968), Deliverance (1972) and the first half of Excalibur (1981) - while Wheatley has less than that.
   
10. When Empire, a once great film mag that I read on a regular basis, gave five star reviews to overrated grot like Grease (1978), Kes (1969) and West Side Story (1961), but awarded Zardoz a posthumous one star rating, then you knew the film was a complete train wreck even for them. Film critic,Will Thomas ended his review by describing it as "dodgy on every level".

It's amazing how John Boorman still had a career following this shambolic cock-up of a movie. Astonishingly, Zardoz wasn't even his worst film, since he continued his predilection for mise-en-scène above any logic with the spectacularly awful Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977). I personally classify this sequel a hate crime as Boorman had been on record with his loathing for William Friedkin's demonic classic. Friedkin wound up having the last laugh in the end as Boorman's film was a commercial and critical flop. Whether it's true or not, Friedkin's schandenfraude is the source of one of my favourite movie related anecdotes on YouTube and a nice little diss to Boorman and the morons who produced it. To think, it could have all been avoided if they watched Zardoz and brought a sick bag with them.

Zardoz (Trailer)

(John Boorman, 1974)