Zardoz
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.57 You Save: $5.37 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.74 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Zardoz
Movie Review: Greatly rewatchable. Interesting for flaws and brilliance
Summary: 4 Stars
`Zardoz' was produced, written, and directed by John Boorman who, like Robert Altman (`M.A.S.H') and Ken Russell (`Women In Love') cash in their credit earned from directing very successful commercial films and spend it to direct very personal, very original, and very uncommercial films. `Zardoz' was made right after Boorman's immense critical and commercial success with `Deliverance' and his star in that movie, Burt Reynolds, was to play the lead role in `Zardoz' until Burt fell ill and was replaced with Sean Connery at a cost of 1/5 of the whole million dollar budget. As high as that relative figure may seem, apparently Connery was just finishing up his appearances as James Bond and no one would hire him for anything else, so he needed the money.
While there is a great danger that no one will ever read this review, it is immense fun to write a review of this rich, quirky, and very flawed movie. For starters, I find it easy to see that people have a hard time understanding the movie. I have never held that fact alone against a movie, as it took me at least three viewings of `2001 A Space Odyssey' to feel I was anywhere near understanding it, and `2001' has taken its rightful place among the very best American movies. It has taken me at least that many viewings to understand some of Fredrico Fellini's movies and I still don't understand `8½'. But that doesn't mean this is not a great movie. But that doesn't mean this is a great movie. It only means it has potential the fact that it can still be found on the store shelves is a testament to the fact that this movie has a lot to offer, even if it ultimately does not fully realize the filmmaker's vision.
There are few movies I have seen which are more in need of the director's commentary than this one. One of Boorman's most telling observations on this commentary is the statement that there may just be too much being attempted in this movie. And, I think this summarizes the problem in a nutshell.
Like all true science fiction works, the heart of `Zardoz' is to set the stage by imagining `what would happen if this statement were true'? The central premise of the movie is the fact that some cataclysm destroyed the world as we know it and, not unlike H. G. Wells' `The Time Machine', humankind has split into two major subspecies, one of which is effectively immortal and the other barely survives on a subsistence level and who treat an artifact of the immortals as a god named `Zardoz'. In addition to being immortal, the higher level beings can communicate telepathically and can control lower level beings by the force of mind alone.
Some of the implications the filmmaker draws from this central premise are truly inspired. By far the most brilliant is the inference that the immortals can suffer from debilitating boredom. To imagine how easy this can happen, just imagine a conventional image of heaven where the primary activities are singing and playing an archaic musical instrument.
Another inspired implication is the fact that the immortals are punished by being aged a certain number of years, so that when they are treated to restore their youth, they never grow any younger than their penal age. These two implications lead to two subgroups. These are immortals who become totally immobilized by ennui and immortals who age to the point of debilitation. If the movie stopped there, it could probably have easily filled its two hours with a rich explication of all these suppositions.
The problem is that to make the story interesting, the storyteller must bring a mortal into the immortals' world to shake things up. The problem I have with the device Boorman uses to bring Connery's mortal character into the immortals' world really doesn't seem to work very well. This element of the story all revolves around the premise that the mortals are being suppressed by a myth based on the story of the Wizard of Oz. This myth is so central to the story that the title of the movie and the name of the deity itself comes from a contraction of `wiZARD of OZ'. Connery's character, `Zed', with the help of his fellow mortal `brutals' manages to get aboard the great stone head which embodies Zardoz' after Zed discovers the fact that the great and mighty `Zardoz' is, like the fictional wizard, a sham. My biggest problem is that the analogy between this future earth and the Land of Oz is very, very thin. There is no explanation I can fathom for why the mortals are divided into two classes, one of which, the `brutals' like Zed spend all their time, catching, raping, and killing the other mortal class. This situation remits somewhat when we see the brutals acting as overseers while the other mortals spend time planting crops, but this subplot is simply not very well developed.
The primary thread of the story is in the contention between two immortals over what to do with Zed. The `scientist' who wishes to study Zed wins a vote to keep him alive for 21 days. In the course of this period, Zed manages to stir up the world of the immortals and do a lot to bring some real interest to their life.
As the movie was done very cheaply in the early 1970's, today's computer based effects simply did not exist and the `on camera' effects are a bit threadbare, not unlike the curtain behind which the Midwestern huckster manipulates the image of the Wizard of Oz. And yet this does not detract from the movie. The film mostly suffers from too much implausibility and, to paraphrase the Austrian Emperor's comments on Mozart's music in `Amadeus', there are `simply too many ideas'.
An yet, this is a really worthwhile movie to see, enhanced by medieval music expert David Munro's score.
Movie Review: Another era, if you can imagine one other than your own
Summary: 4 Stars
"... why so much pre-Star Wars 70's science fiction is not worth watching ..." one apparently underage reviewer observes. Except for Blade Runner and A.I., nearly all Star Wars-and-after science fiction films are simply TV Westerns with spaceships: predictable puerile overloud explosion-filled melodramas about good guys killing bad guys and getting the girl (at their worst, cool dudes killing ... slimeballs and [getting] the hot babe), with adolescent dialogue of snappy put-downs and comebacks, i.e., Nothing New But the FX. If you find THIS satisfying, I leave you to it. If you think life is about more than boy-kills-enemy-gets-girl, if you don't need to love the characters in a film or wish to become them, if you can imagine people having other values than you (and other fashions/cliche's/prejudices/needs), if you can see the world and the way many people live as absurd, if you can imagine looking back on anything that is or ever was important to you and seeing it differently (you will when you get old), if you suspect that serious ideas can be approached through absurdity and bravura irony, if you watched A Clockwork Orange for any reason other than vicarious pleasure in the raping and violence ... try this daring movie. The attacks on it are off-base and beside the point. Obvious statements? It may be "obvious" that a natural cycle of life is better than sterile immortality, but when Boorman takes this idea to its logical extreme, you'll see beautiful care-free immortals begging Zed to shoot them, running into his bullets, falling bloody and blissfully dead in their lovely gardens, and you'll wonder if you really believe it. Most other films, SF included, are about flattering our beliefs and preserving our illusions, not pushing them to their limits and showing us what they really imply. As Boorman explicitly reminds us, by our personal and shared myths we practice our own form of Show Business. But what if our show never ended? ("We've been to the stars ... another dead end ..." says one character, bored.) US pop culture of the 1990s responded to prolonged prosperity, and it wasn't pretty, nor very different from Boorman's Vortex: sharpened competitiveness, social conformity and all-consuming gossip and nastiness that poisoned amity, politics, and sexual relationships, all from boredom; we treated the people and places around us like insufficiently stimulating entertainment. This film is about one showman (the first character we see) who sneers at this charade of "progress" and rings down the curtain. As drama, it's like Beckett on acid Kool-Aid being reconciled to the natural cycle. Boorman satisfies our short attention span in the final montage, giving us Connery and Rampling in their cave, delivering a baby, who matures before our eyes and leaves them behind (Rampling reaches out, vainly, to keep him from going ...), and the parents age, wither, die, decay, and crumble, still holding hands. The puns, visual and verbal; the showbiz references; the refusal to be solemn or earnest or adolescent in the face of Death or Sex; the Apathetics, bored to catatonia by everlasting life and incapable of feeling physical attack; the conquest of Hell, which is now an endless, boring cocktail party for creaking ancients; the re-scoring of Beethoven's Seventh for organ and two male altos; there's plenty to freshen your viewpoint on old things you haven't thought through in a while. Not for those who "just want to be entertained", or who think that pop conventions of today will look like the Last Word on style and attitude in thirty years.Movie Review: Beyond 1984...Beyond 2001...Zardoz Awaits!
Summary: 4 Stars
John Boorman's outré film ZARDOZ (1974) is a somewhat campy but visually stunning science-fiction dystopian fantasy set in the distant future. Sporting a ponytail, a red diaper-like loincloth, bandoliers, and thigh-high gold-digger boots, actor Sean Connery plays an clever barbarian who, on the order of his "god" Zardoz, invades The Vortex, an enclave of cultured academics and aesthetes who have grown intellectually stagnant and morally depraved after their many years of isolation from the rest of the world.Writer/director Boorman is probably best known as the director of DELIVERANCE, James Dickey's screen adaptation of his literate and highly acclaimed novel. While DELIVERANCE is a fairly straightforward story of a clash between a group of northern city dwellers and a clan of depraved backwoodsy southerners, Boorman's ZARDOZ is a deep and complex film that requires viewers to peel back its many layers and ruminate over what they find. The lush cinematography, dazzling visuals, and quirky humor just make up the façade. Underneath is an intricate and sometimes abstruse ontological parable that addresses the nature of reality, class struggle, and the individual's responsibility to society (and vice versa). Thrown into the mix are subtle satirical comments about religion, politics, science, and academics. ZARDOZ is not an audience-friendly movie; it requires the viewer to pay attention and think. In fact, it may take repeated viewings to catch all the symbolism and subtext and thereby understand the film's full meaning. So those who prefer to have their movie themes spoon-fed to them probably won't enjoy ZARDOZ, but those who like for films to stimulate the gray matter--most notably SF fans--should find the film quite entertaining and satisfying.
The acting in the film is a mixed bag, but the principals, especially Connery and Charlotte Rampling, generally do an outstanding job. In a role that is a far cry from his sophisticated and charming James Bond, Connery is very convincing as an intelligent brute who has a difficult time wrapping his head around the philosophy of the denizens of The Vortex. (Some film historians have surmised that Connery's character is a personification of socio-political conservatism, whereas The Vortex folks are philosophically diametric and therefore represent liberalist ideals.) And Ms. Rampling provides sexual tension as a Vortex woman who is physically attracted to Connery but repulsed by what he represents.
The DVD version of this cult classic, from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, is nothing short of outstanding. The film is offered in its original aspect ratio of 2.35:1, and the anamorphic widescreen digital transfer is simply beautiful, with few (if any) noticeable filmic or digital artifacts. Extras include the original theatrical trailer--which blatantly reflects the sensibilities of the post-60s hippie youth of the early 70s--and some radio spots narrated by Rod Serling of THE TWILIGHT ZONE fame. Also available is a feature commentary from writer/director Boorman. (The commentary is interesting, though Boorman's delivery is sometimes halting.)
In short, ZARDOZ is a fascinating SF film that will appeal to the aesthete and the intellectual (i.e., the simple-minded should steer clear). And it's delightful that the DVD age can rescue this oft misunderstood cult film from obscurity and make it available to its fans in its original format. The ZARDOZ disc is well worth the retail price, and all serious SF fans will want it in their DVD collections.
Movie Review: Cerebral Science Fiction Indeed
Summary: 4 Stars
This movie is an interesting extrapolation of what might have happened a couple hundred of years in the future if a bizarre conjunction of events occurred.The vast majority of the world has been destroyed. How the world was destroyed was never explained, but we see that most of the world is barren and smoking. Most buildings are ruined. People run like cattle from a selected few called exterminators, whose sole mission is to kill anyone they find.
All has not been lost, however. There are enclaves of people living in sanctuaries, each called a Vortex. These sanctuaries are protected from the outside world by force fields. Inside the sanctuary the people study and are well fed. They have developed mental abilities, including telepathy and some telekinesis. Most importantly, they are apparently immortal. There are only two downsides to this utopia. First, these people have lost all interest in physical love. Second, a number of these people are so apathetic that they have become like walking dead, devoid of energy and purpose, nearly comatose.
Our story focuses on Zed, played by Sean Connery. Zed is an exterminator who manages to penetrate a Vortex by boarding the giant floating head known as Zardoz. Once Zed penetrates the Vortex, he finds that he was actually bred to be the savior of the residents of the Vortex (you'll have to watch and find out what he is supposed to do, and whether he does it). We learn the origin of the Vortex and follow Zed as he reaches his destiny, as well as that of the people of the Vortex.
The Vortex itself is a socialistic, apparently matriarchal, society. The general appearance and behavior of the residents is as though they were transported from the 1960s into the future. The touching and feeling techniques, the psychedelic special effects, and the generally communal nature of the Vortex all bespeak of the utopia that the flower children of the 60s were hoping to achieve. However, as the advertisements for the movie state, I have seen the future and it does not work. Truer words were never spoken. The citizens of utopia have accomplished nothing, and in general appear to be regressing and petty rather than advancing. Thus, the movie satirizes the society that was held as the ideal of the 60s.
In general the movie is somewhat dated by the now-crude special effects. However, as a vision of the future, the movie accomplishes much. While there are a few plot holes, most of them can be ignored as you follow Zed in his quest for knowledge. I've seen the term "cerebral science fiction" used for this movie, and find it appropriate. This movie falls into the narrow class of movie occupied by a few others such as "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Dark City," and "The Game." You are intended to look for the meanings and satire in this movie, of which there is much.
This movie was one of the best movies I had seen prior to "Star Wars," and continues to be one of my favorites. I recommend this movie to those who like quirky, bizarre and unusual films. It's quite good if you can get into it, but incomprehensible and confused if you can not. Borrow it from a friend before you buy it.
Movie Review: Burt Reynold Was Originally Cast as Zed
Summary: 4 Stars
One afternoon, 10 years after it was released, I saw Zardoz in a moviehouse in Georgetown and didn't get it - except that Sean Connery was still very sexy. Recently, the serendipity of watching The Swimmng Pool with Charlotte Rampling suggested giving this Boorman allegory another chance. I finally get it and had fun seeing it again. Three reasons to watch Zardoz are John Boorman's emerging vision and personal iconography, the power of Sean Connery's presence and acting (especially at the point in his career when he was trying to break from the Bond type-cast), and Geoffrey Unsworth's masterful photography.
Boorman and his actors put their hearts and talent on the line. Connery pulls off wearing the red loincloth and wedding dress, pulling a rickshaw and effectively performing scenes like the lecture on libido with subtle irony. Charlotte Rampling, Sara Kestelman, and other actresses can survive wearing go-go boots or performing nude while portraying strong women in conflict reacting to Zed's mojo. The whole cast of immortals are such good actors that you can giggle about the horror of wearing macram' tops and overly foofed hair, but they suspend your belief in the nightmare society these characters have created. Unsworth not only films this movie; he validates the vision with clear images that indulges Boorman's penchant for setting archetypes and going all Jungian on us. It is beautiful to watch and mostly poetic.
Boorman stuffs the movie with cinematic references like Welles and Peckinpah, much like the immortals have stuffed their museum. In his commentary, he admits putting too much in the film and that he would do things differently with more money and experience. At the beginning, there are moments that almost feel like Monty Python's Holy Grail or Woody Allen's Sleeper, but the movie progresses past that. The set design was interesting, but I felt that the costuming was just a little too groovy. He also admits that some of this cult classic is laughable, but the actors and the camera take it seriously enough to trap us in the Vortex and follow Zed as he searches for the truth. I am a sucker for personal films, and everybody involved made this personal to their truth.
Given what has been going on in Silicon Valley, Zardoz is still very pertinent. The irony is that celluloid projections on glass, superimposed images on film and light refracting from faceted crystals simulated computers, which were used to depict John Boorman's vision of 2293. In any remake, instead of green bread, Boorman's successor would have to direct the brutals in assembling green pizzas, and a notion of a religious mystery commanding the terminators would be named by the corruption of the phrase - Stock Option. Their god would be called Ckoption. Nyahhh! Just watch Zardoz.