Thank you! That’s honestly quite a compliment and I very much appreciate it. I know I’m inclined to poke fun here and there so I’m happy to hear it doesn’t come across as disrespectful.
Calvin is the kind of positive TH-cam reviewer that's sorely needed. I think it's a forgotten art to criticise something in a measured, humourous and well meaning manner, without being nasty about it.
My favorite Zardoz story; going to see it again years later at a revival theatre in L.A. - about midway through during a kaleidoscopic scene the films started to burn in the projector and for a few brief moments the audience thought it was just another effect until the screen went white.
Zardoz is a film that defies explanation. It’s as if Tommy Wiseau decided to make a fantasy movie. It’s just bonkers in so many ways and yet it has an unexplainable charm all it’s own “Oh hi Sean”
I really disagree with this statement (well I agree that its a humorous statement) but it actually takes a lot of skill to pull off the trippy, deliberately off-kilter rule-breaking style of filmmaking we see in Zardoz. Only a director of the caliber of John Boorman (who is in my opinion a genius) can walk the fine line this film treads on. It is 99% of the way to being an incoherent farce but that 1% that holds it together is something only a very gifted director could have achieved.
I saw this in theaters when it came out in 1974 . As the people were leaving the theater I heard a couple say "Let's not tell anyone we saw this movie". I think watching this movie was more trippy than watching 2001 and Clock Orange together on acid could ever have been.
Like you said, this was a film I knew of by reputation long before I actually watched it: Connery’s outfit and the giant floating head. To quote Crow T. Robot from MST3K: “No matter what’s gone wrong with his life, Neil Connery can always look in the mirror and say to himself ‘Well, at least I didn’t do Zardoz’”. Watching it, I found it hard to believe it was a film actually funded by a major American studio - it felt more like some Spanish, Italian or Mexican art house film from the depths of the _1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die_ book. I also found it hard to believe it was an original screenplay, it felt like it had been adapted from a book by some 1960s counterculture author. That being said, it very much feels like a pre-Star Wars 70s sci-fi film. Between 2001 and SW the genre did go in some strange directions, and this has the same kind of mood as films like Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, and the Planet of the Apes sequels. But did I like it though? Yes, I did. Perhaps not love, though. But hey, I much prefer it when a film goes weird and wonderful than plain and humdrum. I did think it was a little pretentious at times, but not so much as to be unbearable. Certainly its strange energy meant it was always entertaining. Would I watch it again? If somewhere like the Princes Charles Cinema had a screening I’d go - this is definitely a film that is enhanced by the big screen experience - but I don’t think it’s a film that’s going to be one I watch over and over again at home. I’m glad I watched it though, and I can easily understand why someone would want to watch it again and again. So I disagree with Mr Crow - I don’t think this is a blot on Connery’s filmography. That being said: why was Sean dressed like that? It’s certainly an… _interesting_ costume choice. Do you think John Boorman specified it in the script? I can easily picture the lackey standing off-camera in the Irish mountains ready to cover Connery in a foil blanket the second Boorman said cut!
Sounds like we had very similar reactions to the film. I'd love to see it with an audience too, hear what people react to etc! The PCC would be an ideal place for it.
@@calvindyson You should consider doing a review The Hill if you haven't seen it already, it's in my opinion one of Connery's best non-Bond roles. It also has a few Bond connections in that there was an actor named Ian Hendry in it who was also in the Casino Royale Spoof, and the cinematographer also did The Man With The Golden Gun.
Zardoz I unironically declare to be awesome, and always thought so. I'm glad to see someone not just doing a cheap "shooting fish in a barrel" snarky take. I consider that the purview of people with lazy critical acumen and a lack of film history knowledge.
I went through a similar experience while stoned off my tits, watching The Who in "Tommy", directed by Ken Russell. Absolutely bat-shit mental. So, I watched it again years later, without the aid of recreational drugs. Still mental. The scene with the baked beans somehow made even less sense.
Outland (1981) is another sci-fi he did. I thought it was pretty solid. Some fun (emphasis on fun) fan theories out there connect it to the Alien universe.
The creators clearly left enough room open for them to be in the same universe but as they could get no rights to Alien it's strictly head canon. I'd love it if the rights could be consolidated and it was retro-actively made canon.
Saw Outland myself when I was a teenager. I am big Science Fiction fan and despite the low budget of the movie, I quite enjoyed for what it was. As Calvin pointed out at the start of the video Sean Connery did have a very diverse filmography besides James Bond and all of his action roles. I am looking forward to seeing more of his his movies in the near future.
Connery *really* wanted to shed his Bond image post DAD… with “Zardoz”, he almost succeeded… almost. John Boorman certainly has a diverse filmography to say the least… “Point Blank”, “Deliverance”, “Zardoz”, “Exorcist II: The Heretic”, “Excalibur”, “Beyond Rangoon”, and even “The Tailor of Panama” with fellow 007 Brosnan
I hope Calvin covers The Tailor Of Panama. It's a fantastic Pierce showcase (kind of a spoof of his Bond, made in between Bond films), a great spy romp/espionage/political satire, and really funny.
John Boorman wanted to make “Lord of the Rings” but the studios thought it would be too expensive to make so he came up with this film instead. Ironically Peter Jackson wanted Sean Connery to star in “Lord of the Rings” but declined because Connery didn’t understand the story. Love your TH-cam videos very informative and entertaining
For me it is a very ambitious failure. Indeed, the sheer scope of ideas and concepts it is trying to cram into a single film is one of its biggest shortcomings. An interesting watch all the same. I think the tone is supposed to be 100% serious. I love Boorman's work, Hell In The Pacific, Point Blank, Deliverance and Excalibur are brilliant. No doubt you have The Tailor Of Panama down to review, interesting as Brosnan starred in it during his Bond career, rather than after.
@@calvindyson In the U.S. this was rated R (restricted), meaning you had to bee accompanied by your parents if you were younger than 17. I could pass for 17, so nobody at the theater asked me any questions. I saw it in the theater. The movie wasn't especially well attended at the showing I was at.
@@calvindyson I think Connery was just in a 'try anything' mood at the time given he also did the western 'Shalako' as a Scottish Cowboy after he left Bond!
@@mrcritical6751 I'm sure they could have explained it to him in a way he could understand. Ian McKellen was such a LOTR fan he had a copy of the book in a pocket in his costume at all times so that worked out for the better.
Weirdest Roger Moore role is either his cameo as a Blofeld style villain in the Spice Girls film, or as a camp Boat Captain in 'Boat Trip' with Cuba Gooding Jr.!
I read that John Boorman [Deliverance and Charlie's dad] wanted to do a Lord of the Rings adaptation but couldn't get the rights so created Zardoz instead.
Yes. Boorman went to Ireland to scout locations for LOTR. After UA said no (budget requirements, condensing three books into one film), Boorman was so taken with the vistas that he not only wrote Zardoz and filmed it there, but made the place his home (it still is). He later filmed Excalibur there, and that's inspired by aspects of his ideas, visuals and locations for LOTR.
This is a fantastic 70's curio. A fever dream of a film that could only have been made in its era. A film that could only have been made by John Boorman. It is unlike anything else. The genre Zardoz is in is, well, Zardoz.
Why does no one ever talk about how impressive Sean Connery’s handlebar mustaches is in this movie? That thing gives Bert Reynolds mustache a run for it’s money in manly coolness
THX-1138, The Bed Sitting Room, Soylent Green, Silent Running, Logan's Run and Zardoz were how "Sci-Fi" movies were in the early 1970s before Star Wars changed out perspective forever.
There was a lot of experimentation with movies in that era. Often times, as in Zardoz, the movies are apparently trying to say something but it's done in a roundabout way. It's like the person who when asked a question goes on for 2 minutes when a "yes" or "no" answer would do. The question is was the statement worth a full length movie?
I watched this in Discord with a group of friends, we drank A LOT that night... I agree that it sticks with you for a long time, really glad you reviewed this one, a fascinating film hilarity aside.
Kudos for going for a relatively sober analysis instead the WTF? approach taken by most TH-camrs. I'm not the biggest Zardoz fan but there are some interesting ideas at work there. Sort of a compendium of late Sixties/early Seventies countercultural pseudo -philosophical ideas that unintentionally (?) exposes them for the load of old tripe they are. Ten years ago John Boorman was prepping a mo-cap 'psychological' re-imagining of TheWizard of Oz that seemingly came to naught. We probably dodged a bullet there.
@@calvindyson Apparently it was going to be fully computer animated. Despite Boorman having no experience in animation, aside from helping to fund Don Bluth's studio in the Nineties. I can recall an interview where Boorman mentioned his version was going to be deeply psychological and tied to Dorothy's maturation into womanhood. Whatever that entails... Boorman seems to have had a long-standing fascination with the Oz books.
Rivaled only by tHE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH with Bowie, ZARDOZ is the most complex, boldest sci-fi film for intelligent adults after Kubrick's 2001 and I admit it can be unintentionally funny, but like a Kubrick film, if you are laughing, you may be missing key points. It is also the greatest risk Connery ever took in his career and though disorienting to more than a few people, this post-modern look at life, death, sex, masculinity and civilization does have all of its ins and outs working. The supporting cast is great and the cinematography is a remarkable use of widescreen Panavision. Like the bowie film, many, many more people need to take it on and discuss it. Your video is one fo the best pieces of coverage I have seen on the film since its release.
Review ‘Time Bandits’ next that’s my favourite Sean Connery film, in fact it’s my favourite film of all time 😂 Plus the story behind his casting is very funny
Holly [named in a homage to HAL from 2001] was originally going to just be a voice [like 'mother' in Alien] but Norman Lovett wanted to be shown on camera-hence the Zardoz homage!
I, for one, would love to see a Zardoz reboot - but more like a total reimagining of the core concept, in the style of what Luca Guadagnino recently did with his version of Suspiria. Someone like Jacques Audiard, Julia Ducournau, or Brandon Cronenberg could add some fascinating insights to the source material - with a soundtrack by Fever Ray, Lingua Ignota, or one of the Radiohead guys. And I wouldn't mind Tom Hardy in the main role, with Alicia Vikander replacing Charlotte Rampling.
Please review these films which also starred Mr Connery, when you have the time: Marnie, Outland, Robin and Marion, Shalako, The Anderson Tapes, The Hill, The Molly Maguires and The Offence.
This video was a nice birthday present for me. I love Zardoz! And it makes a very refreshing change to hear someone on TH-cam not say it was the worst thing ever.
As someone who's read the book of The Wizard of Oz... Zardoz is the single most confusing application of directly invoking it's ideas and it's name I've ever seen. The point is that Zardoz wanted Zed to find out he's a false god after teaching himself to read. Anything else God-related would have worked. Religious texts allude to a true god or godly pantheon, philosophers like Nietzsche say "God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him"... There are two better examples of things that shatter beliefs. Also "The gun is good penis is evil"... Actually has purpose, believe it or not - a society of immortals are a society that's always dependant on the Earth's resources and Zardoz uses religion and pent up sexual frustration to get them to shoot people and give the immortals more resources instead of risking damage to the world... It's clumsily explained but a French miniseries on Netflix called Ad Vitam deals with similar concepts regarding immortality except... It actually explains things clearly.
Zardoz has a bit of a cult following of it's own outside of the Bond universe It lives with me because I saw it on TV when I was a kid and I found it a bit disturbing and not just because Sean wears a red nappy. I watched it again when I was going through all of Connerys films years later and it didn't work for me I don't think the technology was there to pull off the things the director was trying for and it all looks bit dated and comical. Credit to you for giving it a fair review Connery was brave but I always thought..he quit James Bond to make this and other average films from this period?! I get he wanted to do other things and there were some films that are a must watch. Like The Great Train Robbery, The Man Who Would Be King, The Name of The Rose. Zardoz isn't a must watch for me but I get that some people dig it. Can you imagine Burt Reynolds in that film now that would have been a comedy. At least Sean could pull of the nappy.
I hope you will review Robin and Mariana, Calvin. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in story of Robin Hood, both iconic actors at the low ebb of their careers, and movie isn't bad, it is actually quite interesting take on Robin Hood mythos. I am big fan of Audrey Hepburn, that is how I came around to it, and her and Connery work really well together.
I unapologetically enjoy ZardOz. After several viewings, I still can't figure out if the movie thinks it's smarter than it is. Without question, John boorman is smarter than me. It's a brave movie that tried to do brave things. I can't say that this movie is good but it is memorable.
Hi, have you seen Sean Connery's performance in Murder on the Orient Express? It's currently on the BBC iPlayer. He really only has one lengthy scene, but it's a powerful/funny one in which he brings out his character's contradictions. Apparently he earned more money by doing this film than any of the other actors (he was paid a percentage)
Well, he didn't understand those books, whereas for this one, they were like "you're a rapist that doesn't understand civilized mores," and he was like "oh, sure, that I can do."
5:28 Max and Paddy in Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights discussing Connery films and if he wears a wig: Max: Highlander-Wig! Highlander 2: The Quickening-Wig! What was that mad one where he got his c**k out? Paddy: Zardoz Max: Wig!
It's a John Boorman film so it'll be interesting, be it good or bad. Even Exorcist 2 is fascinating, albeit in a 'what the hell have you done?' kind of way.
"Zardoz" isn't a bad movie; just a deeply, deeply weird one. I agree with those recommending "Outland", and I'd also recommend the heist movie "The Anderson Tapes" and the Agatha Christie classic "Murder on the Orient Express" for other fine Connery movies.
And then the director tried to regain his commercial standing by making the sequel to The Exorcist. Sensible plan. Except you can tell it's from the director of Zardoz.
I watched the movie because of your review. I liked the film and thought you pretty much nailed it with your review. There are parts that make you laugh out loud but generally it's pretty interesting and beautifully shot. And it's certainly unique and bizarre and way more memorable than you usual Transformers style vanilla blockbuster.
This low budget film's reach definitely exceeded its grasp, but it still beats most superhero movies. Speaking as a member of the generation that grew up learning to ignore the wobbly sets and dodgy effects of Doctor Who and Blake's Seven, I find it easy to ignore Zardoz's many production compromises and failings. But I fully realise that for most people it's hard to get past things like the red Mankini, the hippie aesthetic, the pretentious dialogue, and the dated sexual politics. So few films try to deal with the distant future in interesting ways, that I won't criticise a film for trying and (mostly) failing.
Having grown up with Connery's Bond - I'm part of the ABC Sunday Night Movie generation - I was always happy to watch any movie starring Connery. I first saw Zardoz in my late teens, though it was pretentious, incoherent crap, and more or less relegated it to my mental file on bad movies. Skip ahead by twenty years and I see it again, this time absorbing its weirdness and getting with its concepts. Since then I have been an active advocate for the uninitiated to see the film, even if only just to experience it. I am now in my mid-fifties and I love it for the strange, febrile beast that it is. I would not change a single thing about it.
Wow I've never clicked on a video so quickly. That thumbnail 😂 I've honestly never heard of this film and was very pleased to find out that I now have a bonkers sci fi film with Sean Connery to watch.
I've never seen this and now I'm more than a little curious to watch it! Over the last few years, I've felt that after Diamonds are Forever, Connery really wasn't in much of anything of note, save for Zardoz and it seems like Never Say Never Again may have actually rejuvenated his later career which is weird to think because he went unto The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and The Hunt for Red October. It's really hard to ever really think of Connery in something like this.
Between Diamonds and Never, he had a small 'golden period' in the mid-70's with 'Man who would be king', 'Wind and the Lion' and 'Robin and Marion' while 'Outland' and 'Great Train Robbery' have there fans.
After taking a break post Never [more due to exhaustion at the troubled production as it was a hit], Connery relaunched himself with Highlander and 'In the name of the Rose' [which he won a BAFTA] which established him as a mentor/elder statesman in movies.
@@jamesatkinsonja Admittedly, I've never really seen any Connery films from the 70s save for DAF so I can't really say on how they are overall but it feels like that time in his filmography is a bit overlooked and it wasn't until the mid 80s when it seemed like he got a second wind in terms of notable roles. I will definitely have to seek those out and give them a watch.
I've seen Zardoz many times, including it's original theatrical release in 1974. A few dull moments, but overall a terrific film and I would watch it again.
Great review! I’m surprised that it doesn’t have a ‘Rocky Horror’ style flash mob following It was overly ambitious for its budget and ahead of its time socially..but a remake might actually work today. But who could possibly play Zed? Have you seen Ray’s Review? The English Puppet? It’s hysterical but respectful at the same time
I've never seen a bad Connery film. Including this goofy mess lol. If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend The Offence. He plays a veteran cop who loses his mind while interrogating a suspected child rapist and murders him. Connery was unbelievably good in it.
Part of Connery's generous deal for doing Diamonds Are Forever was that United Artists would bankroll two films of his choice One was The Offence, and the other for unknown reasons was never made.
@@davidjames579 The other film was to be an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, filmed entirely in Scotland. However, Roman Polanski was already doing a film version of Macbeth and the studio didn’t want to compete with it, so Connery’s Macbeth never got made. Bad luck for Connery - maybe he said the name of the play out loud. He should’ve told UA he wanted to do ‘The Scottish Play’, or rather, ‘The Scottish Film’.
@@BenCol In the words of General Gogol: That's brilliant. Thanks very much! I wonder why Connery didn't make them do something else instead if they owed him a film.
Dont waste your time with this if you haven't seen On The Silver Globe or any Zulawski, Fellini, Bunuel or Kyoshi Kurosawa. I would even recommend Rebirth of Mothra 2 and Conquest over this. Only then, go for it.
And I thought Universal Soldier was the weirdest thing an ex-Bond has ever done. Y’know, I think most Bonds do have a Zardoz, Brosnan has Mamma Mia, Lazenby has Universal Soldier, and Craig has Knives Out, though knives Out is a masterpiece.
Haven't watched "Zardoz" but a couple of times since first seeing it as a teen. My impression hasn't changed much since. For context, at the time I was getting into the unabridged, unaltered, not just Lilliput, "Gulliver's Travels", so it dawned on me, while watching "Zardoz": Boorman was doing with "Zardoz" something similar to what 17th-18th century writers like Jonathan Swift did with stuff like Gulliver, a piece of fantasy or proto-scifi fiction that uses its whimsy and silliness as cover for its satirical and philosophical points (to the point of allegorical character names. FRIEND? George SAD(D)EN?). The whole thing about the Eternals and the punished ones among them aging eternally to the point they wish dead is EXACTLY the point of one of the lands visited by Gulliver (why I made that connection so clearly in my mind). Not sure if Boorman was that intentionally doing his "Gulliver", but I do think he was approaching it like an early novel (a lot of experimental directors from the '60s-70s tried to resurect into cinema a lt of more serious older approaches to art, after all). In that sense I think there were very interesting ideas to it, a basic good approach to how using the story to tell it... but the execution (by Boorman's own admission as Calvin notes in the video) fell short from the intention. Oh, this was intended to be satirical, sure, but I'm quite sure Boorman didn't intend ANY of it to be THIS silly. The moment the film lost me was when Friend was jazz-handed and creepy-music-ed to collapse before being exiled for his violations of the Eternals' laws. Oh, I liked the concept, and when the scene started I thought it would look less silly than it did, but it went on without cutting away too long for working, and the Eternals punishing Friend just waved their hands and arms in a way that just could not look anything but silly. The film just has too many things like that (including Zed's "entry" into the pyramid) didn't have enough budget to fulfil the concepts, and I doubt many could not look silly even with a budget. The moment I watched I thought "This would probably make for a great comic book or animated film, since illustrated means can overcome some live action limitations of making some movements and poses work. Not saying it could be impossible to pull them off in live action, I think George Romero's "Creepshow" shows how you could pull some visuals that seem like they could only work in illustrated form but I think that signals how you need to direct scenes like comic book panels for those cases. So I guess Boorman needed a live action campy comic approach for this art house idea.
So let me get this straight. A huge bulbous head tells men with heads on their heads, that getting a head is bad, all while several girls not getting any head try to get some head out of Connery. All seems pretty logical to me. The camp plot cant decide whether it wants to be Barbarella, or Carry On Up The Crevice. It is trying to be edgy and surreal but the only thing it managed to do was ruin Connery's high profile reputation. Why did he do it then? Shardosh!
@@MrPlannery He was also one of the prisoners on the convict planet in Alien 3! (It was on tv last night and It was the first time I noticed him in it and made the connection)
@@nicknewman7848well, I had to wiki him. He's been a guest actor on many a mediocre BBC drama, but also Hellraiser ("dinner guest") and The Professionals. Speaking of Hellraiser, 'Pinhead' (Douglas Bradley) pops up in various BBC dramas too.
You know how people can spend years obsessively dismissing things as not worth a minute's consideration? And you know how they can go on epic rants, pointing and desperately forcing laughter, explaining at length why their opinions are self-evidently true? Of course you do, because they do it about Zardoz. Odd, that.
5:19 - I can’t believe you passed on calling it a ‘Mirrormid’. Or a ‘Myrapid’ if you’re a fan of spoonerisms. Anyway, on an unrelated note, I’ve got an idea for a film: in a dystopian post-apocalyptic future, a religious order roams the land killing every man named Roy by whacking him in the balls to death, as decreed in their holy book ‘NO ROY’. Until it turns out that NO ROY is just a copy of Casino Royale that got badly damaged in the nuclear war/great flood/solar flare, whatever, and got misinterpreted by the clueless descendants of the survivors, who grew up with no knowledge of the pre-apocalypse civilisation. Haven’t worked out an ending, but I think it should end with everyone dying for no adequately explained reason - it’s gonna be deep, man!
Great video. This movie is weird. It's hard to watch it entirely with a straight face. I've see on a youtube video. Someone people were giving this the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.
Your takes are so respectful and well-tempered, it's like taking a dose of anti-twitter.
Thank you! That’s honestly quite a compliment and I very much appreciate it. I know I’m inclined to poke fun here and there so I’m happy to hear it doesn’t come across as disrespectful.
Calvin is eloquent and sharp. A really intelligent guy.
@@calvindyson Agreed. Always entertaining and informative. Such a nice change from a lot of the negative reviews on youtube.
Calvin is the kind of positive TH-cam reviewer that's sorely needed. I think it's a forgotten art to criticise something in a measured, humourous and well meaning manner, without being nasty about it.
I hope Daniel Craig appears in something like this after No Time to Die
Knifes out 2 😂.
@@residentsteve Knives out... Really fantastic.
In the meantime you can photoshop some suspenders to match his blue swimsuit from Casino Royale to tide you over 😊
There's that vodka advertisement.
You dress like James Bond for Bond reviews, Why didn't you dress like Zed?
😆
Agreed!! C'mon Calvin sort it out!!!😄😄😄👍💓
HAHAHAHA!
"Good evening, Mr Zardoz fan"
It only works if you see his full body!
My favorite Zardoz story; going to see it again years later at a revival theatre in L.A. - about midway through during a kaleidoscopic scene the films started to burn in the projector and for a few brief moments the audience thought it was just another effect until the screen went white.
Zardoz is a film that defies explanation. It’s as if Tommy Wiseau decided to make a fantasy movie. It’s just bonkers in so many ways and yet it has an unexplainable charm all it’s own
“Oh hi Sean”
I really disagree with this statement (well I agree that its a humorous statement) but it actually takes a lot of skill to pull off the trippy, deliberately off-kilter rule-breaking style of filmmaking we see in Zardoz. Only a director of the caliber of John Boorman (who is in my opinion a genius) can walk the fine line this film treads on. It is 99% of the way to being an incoherent farce but that 1% that holds it together is something only a very gifted director could have achieved.
Just before watching this, my claim to fame is that my uncle was an apathetic in this film. I honour his role in my own life to this day.
Makes the ‘67 Casino Royale look straight edge, from a tripping balls standpoint.
That's such a good line, that should genuinely be on the back of the blu ray box!
I saw this in theaters when it came out in 1974 . As the people were leaving the theater I heard a couple say "Let's not tell anyone we saw this movie". I think watching this movie was more trippy than watching 2001 and Clock Orange together on acid could ever have been.
They were missing out. This movie is genuinely great and what I assumed a bad trip is like
Like you said, this was a film I knew of by reputation long before I actually watched it: Connery’s outfit and the giant floating head. To quote Crow T. Robot from MST3K: “No matter what’s gone wrong with his life, Neil Connery can always look in the mirror and say to himself ‘Well, at least I didn’t do Zardoz’”.
Watching it, I found it hard to believe it was a film actually funded by a major American studio - it felt more like some Spanish, Italian or Mexican art house film from the depths of the _1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die_ book. I also found it hard to believe it was an original screenplay, it felt like it had been adapted from a book by some 1960s counterculture author. That being said, it very much feels like a pre-Star Wars 70s sci-fi film. Between 2001 and SW the genre did go in some strange directions, and this has the same kind of mood as films like Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, and the Planet of the Apes sequels.
But did I like it though? Yes, I did. Perhaps not love, though. But hey, I much prefer it when a film goes weird and wonderful than plain and humdrum. I did think it was a little pretentious at times, but not so much as to be unbearable. Certainly its strange energy meant it was always entertaining. Would I watch it again? If somewhere like the Princes Charles Cinema had a screening I’d go - this is definitely a film that is enhanced by the big screen experience - but I don’t think it’s a film that’s going to be one I watch over and over again at home. I’m glad I watched it though, and I can easily understand why someone would want to watch it again and again.
So I disagree with Mr Crow - I don’t think this is a blot on Connery’s filmography. That being said: why was Sean dressed like that? It’s certainly an… _interesting_ costume choice. Do you think John Boorman specified it in the script? I can easily picture the lackey standing off-camera in the Irish mountains ready to cover Connery in a foil blanket the second Boorman said cut!
Sounds like we had very similar reactions to the film. I'd love to see it with an audience too, hear what people react to etc! The PCC would be an ideal place for it.
@@calvindyson You should consider doing a review The Hill if you haven't seen it already, it's in my opinion one of Connery's best non-Bond roles. It also has a few Bond connections in that there was an actor named Ian Hendry in it who was also in the Casino Royale Spoof, and the cinematographer also did The Man With The Golden Gun.
Zardoz I unironically declare to be awesome, and always thought so. I'm glad to see someone not just doing a cheap "shooting fish in a barrel" snarky take. I consider that the purview of people with lazy critical acumen and a lack of film history knowledge.
I saw it shortly after Sean's death. I was amazed by how psychedelic, crazy, beautiful and ambitious this film is.
Clearly, the film to watch drunk and freaking laugh at the stupidity.
I went through a similar experience while stoned off my tits, watching The Who in "Tommy", directed by Ken Russell. Absolutely bat-shit mental. So, I watched it again years later, without the aid of recreational drugs. Still mental. The scene with the baked beans somehow made even less sense.
That was a reference to a Baked Bean commercial Ken made before Tommy, that’s why it’s there.
I was too busy loving Ann Margaret to think about the beans!!
Or high.
Colin went through all 7 stages of grief watching the film. Hahahahaha
Outland (1981) is another sci-fi he did. I thought it was pretty solid. Some fun (emphasis on fun) fan theories out there connect it to the Alien universe.
The creators clearly left enough room open for them to be in the same universe but as they could get no rights to Alien it's strictly head canon. I'd love it if the rights could be consolidated and it was retro-actively made canon.
Saw Outland myself when I was a teenager. I am big Science Fiction fan and despite the low budget of the movie, I quite enjoyed for what it was. As Calvin pointed out at the start of the video Sean Connery did have a very diverse filmography besides James Bond and all of his action roles. I am looking forward to seeing more of his his movies in the near future.
Well it's clearly inspired by Alien's look [as was Red Dwarf] but it can be it's own thing.
Outland is an underrated classic sci-fi!
Excuse me, the end sequence was unironically beautiful. I can't be the only one who was touched by it
Connery *really* wanted to shed his Bond image post DAD… with “Zardoz”, he almost succeeded… almost.
John Boorman certainly has a diverse filmography to say the least… “Point Blank”, “Deliverance”, “Zardoz”, “Exorcist II: The Heretic”, “Excalibur”, “Beyond Rangoon”, and even “The Tailor of Panama” with fellow 007 Brosnan
DAF!
I hope Calvin covers The Tailor Of Panama. It's a fantastic Pierce showcase (kind of a spoof of his Bond, made in between Bond films), a great spy romp/espionage/political satire, and really funny.
@@davidjames579 And based on a John Le Carre novel with a young Daniel Radcliffe
Connery in Die Another Day!? That i want to see.
@@TheShape--xt6pk Seeing him doing the stupid Windsurfing scene would be BRILLIANT.
This is the sort of film that could only come from the 1970s. I'll let people decide for themselves whether that's a good thing or a bad thing!
I wonder how it did on the Midnight Movie and College Theater circuit?
I was there and I support this opinion of the 1970's. I just really need to finally see "Zardoz" from start to finish, as I haven't done that.
@@davidjames579 I think it was mostly "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and some others then, with "Zardoz" not being among them.
@@jackee-is-silent2938 Oh that's a pity. It seems a Head Movie.
John Boorman wanted to make “Lord of the Rings” but the studios thought it would be too expensive to make so he came up with this film instead. Ironically Peter Jackson wanted Sean Connery to star in “Lord of the Rings” but declined because Connery didn’t understand the story. Love your TH-cam videos very informative and entertaining
For me it is a very ambitious failure. Indeed, the sheer scope of ideas and concepts it is trying to cram into a single film is one of its biggest shortcomings. An interesting watch all the same.
I think the tone is supposed to be 100% serious. I love Boorman's work, Hell In The Pacific, Point Blank, Deliverance and Excalibur are brilliant.
No doubt you have The Tailor Of Panama down to review, interesting as Brosnan starred in it during his Bond career, rather than after.
Oh, laddie! I saw this movie first-run in the theater. I can't imagine how someone views this movie for the first time in the 21st century.
I would absolutely LOVE to see this in a theatre with an audience! I'd be fascinated in hearing what gets a reaction from the crowd.
@@calvindyson In the U.S. this was rated R (restricted), meaning you had to bee accompanied by your parents if you were younger than 17. I could pass for 17, so nobody at the theater asked me any questions. I saw it in the theater. The movie wasn't especially well attended at the showing I was at.
I would have loved seening it on screen
Such a trippy science fiction film! Watched that waaaayyy too young and loved it! ❤️
Zardoz: If we can get Sean Connery to run around in a red mankini then anything is possible
Reminder: Sean Connery turned down The Matrix and Lord of The Rings but he did this.
I love that he turned them down specifically because he "didn't understand them" but this must have made perfect sense!
@@calvindyson As Connery was a last minute replacement maybe he didn't realize what he was signing up for!
@@calvindyson I think Connery was just in a 'try anything' mood at the time given he also did the western 'Shalako' as a Scottish Cowboy after he left Bond!
I just don’t get how Connery couldn’t understand The Matrix, how hard is all of humanity being trapped in a computer programme by evil robots to get?
@@mrcritical6751 I'm sure they could have explained it to him in a way he could understand. Ian McKellen was such a LOTR fan he had a copy of the book in a pocket in his costume at all times so that worked out for the better.
Is this the weirdest post-Bond role ever?
Weirdest Roger Moore role is either his cameo as a Blofeld style villain in the Spice Girls film, or as a camp Boat Captain in 'Boat Trip' with Cuba Gooding Jr.!
I read that John Boorman [Deliverance and Charlie's dad] wanted to do a Lord of the Rings adaptation but couldn't get the rights so created Zardoz instead.
He wrote a script, but UA passed on it when Ralph Bakshi came along. Apparently Boorman’s script is absolutely insane though.
@@BenCol Yes, there are scenes where Frodo and Galadriel get it on, and Aragorn and Boromir have a three-way with Arwen.
@@boblowes whoa, what? I don’t recall any of this in the books lmao
@@tlshortyshorty5810 It's all in the Appendices!
Yes. Boorman went to Ireland to scout locations for LOTR. After UA said no (budget requirements, condensing three books into one film), Boorman was so taken with the vistas that he not only wrote Zardoz and filmed it there, but made the place his home (it still is). He later filmed Excalibur there, and that's inspired by aspects of his ideas, visuals and locations for LOTR.
_Never, Never, Never Say Zardoz Again~_
Hahahahaha
This is a fantastic 70's curio. A fever dream of a film that could only have been made in its era. A film that could only have been made by John Boorman. It is unlike anything else. The genre Zardoz is in is, well, Zardoz.
Why does no one ever talk about how impressive Sean Connery’s handlebar mustaches is in this movie? That thing gives Bert Reynolds mustache a run for it’s money in manly coolness
Of course Connery was a replacement for Reynolds in this film.
THX-1138, The Bed Sitting Room, Soylent Green, Silent Running, Logan's Run and Zardoz were how "Sci-Fi" movies were in the early 1970s before Star Wars changed out perspective forever.
It’s a pity that Dark Star always gets overlooked. I think it’s a good benchmark or starting point for making a low budget Science fiction film today.
There was a lot of experimentation with movies in that era. Often times, as in Zardoz, the movies are apparently trying to say something but it's done in a roundabout way. It's like the person who when asked a question goes on for 2 minutes when a "yes" or "no" answer would do. The question is was the statement worth a full length movie?
Showed my nephew Highlander the other day, which is a whole different kind of weird but also has a coherant story and is brilliant.
I watched this in Discord with a group of friends, we drank A LOT that night... I agree that it sticks with you for a long time, really glad you reviewed this one, a fascinating film hilarity aside.
Kudos for going for a relatively sober analysis instead the WTF? approach taken by most TH-camrs. I'm not the biggest Zardoz fan but there are some interesting ideas at work there. Sort of a compendium of late Sixties/early Seventies countercultural pseudo -philosophical ideas that unintentionally (?) exposes them for the load of old tripe they are. Ten years ago John Boorman was prepping a mo-cap 'psychological' re-imagining of TheWizard of Oz that seemingly came to naught. We probably dodged a bullet there.
Thanks, Andrew! I didn’t know that about Boorman prepping a reimagining of The Wizard of Oz… I’m quite fascinated to find out more now!!
@@calvindyson Apparently it was going to be fully computer animated. Despite Boorman having no experience in animation, aside from helping to fund Don Bluth's studio in the Nineties. I can recall an interview where Boorman mentioned his version was going to be deeply psychological and tied to Dorothy's maturation into womanhood. Whatever that entails... Boorman seems to have had a long-standing fascination with the Oz books.
You might want to check out the somewhat forgotten Outland, starring Sean. It's a decent, albeit underrated, sci-fi thriller.
The movie where he started to claw back his stardom.
Rivaled only by tHE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH with Bowie, ZARDOZ is the most complex, boldest sci-fi film for intelligent adults after Kubrick's 2001 and I admit it can be unintentionally funny, but like a Kubrick film, if you are laughing, you may be missing key points. It is also the greatest risk Connery ever took in his career and though disorienting to more than a few people, this post-modern look at life, death, sex, masculinity and civilization does have all of its ins and outs working. The supporting cast is great and the cinematography is a remarkable use of widescreen Panavision. Like the bowie film, many, many more people need to take it on and discuss it. Your video is one fo the best pieces of coverage I have seen on the film since its release.
Hot take: This movie is prophetic
Review ‘Time Bandits’ next that’s my favourite Sean Connery film, in fact it’s my favourite film of all time 😂
Plus the story behind his casting is very funny
WTF 🤯 never heard of this ever it looks interesting 😂. That floating head is that where red dwarf got the idea for holly 🤣.
Holly [named in a homage to HAL from 2001] was originally going to just be a voice [like 'mother' in Alien] but Norman Lovett wanted to be shown on camera-hence the Zardoz homage!
The tuxedo is bad, the mankini is good.
1:08 - an extra almost gets killed. It was the 70's, they were cheap back then.
I, for one, would love to see a Zardoz reboot - but more like a total reimagining of the core concept, in the style of what Luca Guadagnino recently did with his version of Suspiria. Someone like Jacques Audiard, Julia Ducournau, or Brandon Cronenberg could add some fascinating insights to the source material - with a soundtrack by Fever Ray, Lingua Ignota, or one of the Radiohead guys. And I wouldn't mind Tom Hardy in the main role, with Alicia Vikander replacing Charlotte Rampling.
The Tabernacle voiced by David de Keyser was the icing on the cake for this film. Praise be to Zardoz!
I still need to see this, awesome video
**looks at thumbnail**
...kinda knew this day would come.
It was always inevitable
Please review these films which also starred Mr Connery, when you have the time: Marnie, Outland, Robin and Marion, Shalako, The Anderson Tapes, The Hill, The Molly Maguires and The Offence.
All great performances. Robin and Marion deserves to be seen more.
@@richardvinsen2385 It's better than the overrated Robin Hood: POT.
@@RebelFinch More like Robin Hood POS.
Marine is also a Hitchcock film so that's two boxes ticked!
You might like Arabesque, a thriller with Gregory Peck. It has some great music and set pieces.
This video was a nice birthday present for me. I love Zardoz! And it makes a very refreshing change to hear someone on TH-cam not say it was the worst thing ever.
ok Calvin. Here’s my take on it, it’s definitely Crap, but for some reason is strangely entertaining. I absolutely don’t hate it.
As someone who's read the book of The Wizard of Oz... Zardoz is the single most confusing application of directly invoking it's ideas and it's name I've ever seen.
The point is that Zardoz wanted Zed to find out he's a false god after teaching himself to read. Anything else God-related would have worked. Religious texts allude to a true god or godly pantheon, philosophers like Nietzsche say "God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him"... There are two better examples of things that shatter beliefs.
Also "The gun is good penis is evil"... Actually has purpose, believe it or not - a society of immortals are a society that's always dependant on the Earth's resources and Zardoz uses religion and pent up sexual frustration to get them to shoot people and give the immortals more resources instead of risking damage to the world... It's clumsily explained but a French miniseries on Netflix called Ad Vitam deals with similar concepts regarding immortality except... It actually explains things clearly.
But nobody could quite determine how this "Censored", becomes this "Extra Censored" XD.
Zardoz has a bit of a cult following of it's own outside of the Bond universe It lives with me because I saw it on TV when I was a kid and I found it a bit disturbing and not just because Sean wears a red nappy. I watched it again when I was going through all of Connerys films years later and it didn't work for me I don't think the technology was there to pull off the things the director was trying for and it all looks bit dated and comical. Credit to you for giving it a fair review Connery was brave but I always thought..he quit James Bond to make this and other average films from this period?! I get he wanted to do other things and there were some films that are a must watch. Like The Great Train Robbery, The Man Who Would Be King, The Name of The Rose. Zardoz isn't a must watch for me but I get that some people dig it. Can you imagine Burt Reynolds in that film now that would have been a comedy. At least Sean could pull of the nappy.
I hope you will review Robin and Mariana, Calvin. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in story of Robin Hood, both iconic actors at the low ebb of their careers, and movie isn't bad, it is actually quite interesting take on Robin Hood mythos. I am big fan of Audrey Hepburn, that is how I came around to it, and her and Connery work really well together.
I unapologetically enjoy ZardOz. After several viewings, I still can't figure out if the movie thinks it's smarter than it is. Without question, John boorman is smarter than me. It's a brave movie that tried to do brave things. I can't say that this movie is good but it is memorable.
Hi, have you seen Sean Connery's performance in Murder on the Orient Express? It's currently on the BBC iPlayer. He really only has one lengthy scene, but it's a powerful/funny one in which he brings out his character's contradictions. Apparently he earned more money by doing this film than any of the other actors (he was paid a percentage)
How about a review of "Meteor"?
Connery does a 70's disaster movie.
Not a bad shout at all! I haven’t seen it but I hear it’s quite a campy disaster movie so would probably make for a fun discussion!
@@calvindyson It's very silly but it does have a great cast. And it's on TH-cam.
@@calvindyson the “mudcaps” worn by Connery and Natalie Wood warrant a lot of discussion.
Watched it recently and it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected.
As a kid I loved that SciFi Western he was in, in which peoples heads exploded inside their helmets. Lovely sunday evening programming!
Some recommended Connery films: The Man Who Would Be King, The Great Train Robbery, The Molly Maguires, The Red Tent, The Hill, The Frightened City.
Zardoz is funny, weird, a bit uncomfortable and I'm pretty sure the co-writer was drugs.
What shocks me is Sean Connery turned down Gandalf, Dumbldore and a role in The Matrix because he didn’t understand the script but said yes to this.
Well, he didn't understand those books, whereas for this one, they were like "you're a rapist that doesn't understand civilized mores," and he was like "oh, sure, that I can do."
OK, now do a review of genuinely good post-Bond Connery film: The Man Who Would Be King.
5:28 Max and Paddy in Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights discussing Connery films and if he wears a wig:
Max: Highlander-Wig! Highlander 2: The Quickening-Wig! What was that mad one where he got his c**k out?
Paddy: Zardoz
Max: Wig!
ZARDOZ how funny wood if this name of kid's Cereals.
Zardoz is always worth a watch. It's insane in the best of ways.
It's a John Boorman film so it'll be interesting, be it good or bad. Even Exorcist 2 is fascinating, albeit in a 'what the hell have you done?' kind of way.
Love the fact that the opening song is "A Fifth of Beethoven". Sort of fits the overall tone of things...
Calvin you should review the hunt for red October. Tom clancy's novel turned into a great movie. Connery is great in it 😊
i remember staying up late, past 11pm as a kid to watch this..... was baffled.
They certainly picked the best man to don those red underoos!
To bad the movie is not spanish, then they could have made a sequel called "Zar dos".
I don’t think I’ll ever get that image of Sean Connery in that red outfit out of my head
"Zardoz" isn't a bad movie; just a deeply, deeply weird one. I agree with those recommending "Outland", and I'd also recommend the heist movie "The Anderson Tapes" and the Agatha Christie classic "Murder on the Orient Express" for other fine Connery movies.
Oh, and using "A Fifth of Beethoven" for the review was a great choice.
And then the director tried to regain his commercial standing by making the sequel to The Exorcist. Sensible plan. Except you can tell it's from the director of Zardoz.
The best thing about that is John Boorman hates the original Exorcist...but was hired to do the sequel!
I watched the movie because of your review. I liked the film and thought you pretty much nailed it with your review. There are parts that make you laugh out loud but generally it's pretty interesting and beautifully shot. And it's certainly unique and bizarre and way more memorable than you usual Transformers style vanilla blockbuster.
This low budget film's reach definitely exceeded its grasp, but it still beats most superhero movies. Speaking as a member of the generation that grew up learning to ignore the wobbly sets and dodgy effects of Doctor Who and Blake's Seven, I find it easy to ignore Zardoz's many production compromises and failings. But I fully realise that for most people it's hard to get past things like the red Mankini, the hippie aesthetic, the pretentious dialogue, and the dated sexual politics. So few films try to deal with the distant future in interesting ways, that I won't criticise a film for trying and (mostly) failing.
Having grown up with Connery's Bond - I'm part of the ABC Sunday Night Movie generation - I was always happy to watch any movie starring Connery. I first saw Zardoz in my late teens, though it was pretentious, incoherent crap, and more or less relegated it to my mental file on bad movies. Skip ahead by twenty years and I see it again, this time absorbing its weirdness and getting with its concepts. Since then I have been an active advocate for the uninitiated to see the film, even if only just to experience it. I am now in my mid-fifties and I love it for the strange, febrile beast that it is. I would not change a single thing about it.
So the system in Zardoz is a lot like today’s imperialism.
Love the Walter Murphy music in this video
Terrible couple of days at work.thank you Calvin for this.😂
More like James Bond does The Prisoner
Wow I've never clicked on a video so quickly. That thumbnail 😂
I've honestly never heard of this film and was very pleased to find out that I now have a bonkers sci fi film with Sean Connery to watch.
That movie is absolutely wild lol
Loved Zardoz!!! Definitely a psychedlic experience! Never boring funny interesting & confusing lol
I've never seen this and now I'm more than a little curious to watch it! Over the last few years, I've felt that after Diamonds are Forever, Connery really wasn't in much of anything of note, save for Zardoz and it seems like Never Say Never Again may have actually rejuvenated his later career which is weird to think because he went unto The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and The Hunt for Red October. It's really hard to ever really think of Connery in something like this.
Between Diamonds and Never, he had a small 'golden period' in the mid-70's with 'Man who would be king', 'Wind and the Lion' and 'Robin and Marion' while 'Outland' and 'Great Train Robbery' have there fans.
After taking a break post Never [more due to exhaustion at the troubled production as it was a hit], Connery relaunched himself with Highlander and 'In the name of the Rose' [which he won a BAFTA] which established him as a mentor/elder statesman in movies.
@@jamesatkinsonja Admittedly, I've never really seen any Connery films from the 70s save for DAF so I can't really say on how they are overall but it feels like that time in his filmography is a bit overlooked and it wasn't until the mid 80s when it seemed like he got a second wind in terms of notable roles. I will definitely have to seek those out and give them a watch.
I've seen Zardoz many times, including it's original theatrical release in 1974. A few dull moments, but overall a terrific film and I would watch it again.
LSD trip is the alternative title
Great review!
I’m surprised that it doesn’t have a ‘Rocky Horror’ style flash mob following
It was overly ambitious for its budget and ahead of its time socially..but a remake might actually work today. But who could possibly play Zed?
Have you seen Ray’s Review? The English Puppet? It’s hysterical but respectful at the same time
I've never seen a bad Connery film. Including this goofy mess lol. If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend The Offence. He plays a veteran cop who loses his mind while interrogating a suspected child rapist and murders him. Connery was unbelievably good in it.
Part of Connery's generous deal for doing Diamonds Are Forever was that United Artists would bankroll two films of his choice One was The Offence, and the other for unknown reasons was never made.
@@davidjames579 The other film was to be an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, filmed entirely in Scotland. However, Roman Polanski was already doing a film version of Macbeth and the studio didn’t want to compete with it, so Connery’s Macbeth never got made.
Bad luck for Connery - maybe he said the name of the play out loud. He should’ve told UA he wanted to do ‘The Scottish Play’, or rather, ‘The Scottish Film’.
@@BenCol In the words of General Gogol: That's brilliant. Thanks very much! I wonder why Connery didn't make them do something else instead if they owed him a film.
Its one of my favorite movies
Let's put it this way...Ken Russell and Alejandro Jodorowsky probably LOVE this film! Boorman made an "unintentional" Sci fi/Art film!
Dont waste your time with this if you haven't seen On The Silver Globe or any Zulawski, Fellini, Bunuel or Kyoshi Kurosawa. I would even recommend Rebirth of Mothra 2 and Conquest over this. Only then, go for it.
This movie get more interesting with each viewing. It’s awesome. I love it!
Great review!
It’s the most 70s film ever. I love it
And I thought Universal Soldier was the weirdest thing an ex-Bond has ever done.
Y’know, I think most Bonds do have a Zardoz, Brosnan has Mamma Mia, Lazenby has Universal Soldier, and Craig has Knives Out, though knives Out is a masterpiece.
Haven't watched "Zardoz" but a couple of times since first seeing it as a teen. My impression hasn't changed much since. For context, at the time I was getting into the unabridged, unaltered, not just Lilliput, "Gulliver's Travels", so it dawned on me, while watching "Zardoz": Boorman was doing with "Zardoz" something similar to what 17th-18th century writers like Jonathan Swift did with stuff like Gulliver, a piece of fantasy or proto-scifi fiction that uses its whimsy and silliness as cover for its satirical and philosophical points (to the point of allegorical character names. FRIEND? George SAD(D)EN?). The whole thing about the Eternals and the punished ones among them aging eternally to the point they wish dead is EXACTLY the point of one of the lands visited by Gulliver (why I made that connection so clearly in my mind). Not sure if Boorman was that intentionally doing his "Gulliver", but I do think he was approaching it like an early novel (a lot of experimental directors from the '60s-70s tried to resurect into cinema a lt of more serious older approaches to art, after all). In that sense I think there were very interesting ideas to it, a basic good approach to how using the story to tell it... but the execution (by Boorman's own admission as Calvin notes in the video) fell short from the intention.
Oh, this was intended to be satirical, sure, but I'm quite sure Boorman didn't intend ANY of it to be THIS silly. The moment the film lost me was when Friend was jazz-handed and creepy-music-ed to collapse before being exiled for his violations of the Eternals' laws. Oh, I liked the concept, and when the scene started I thought it would look less silly than it did, but it went on without cutting away too long for working, and the Eternals punishing Friend just waved their hands and arms in a way that just could not look anything but silly. The film just has too many things like that (including Zed's "entry" into the pyramid) didn't have enough budget to fulfil the concepts, and I doubt many could not look silly even with a budget. The moment I watched I thought "This would probably make for a great comic book or animated film, since illustrated means can overcome some live action limitations of making some movements and poses work. Not saying it could be impossible to pull them off in live action, I think George Romero's "Creepshow" shows how you could pull some visuals that seem like they could only work in illustrated form but I think that signals how you need to direct scenes like comic book panels for those cases. So I guess Boorman needed a live action campy comic approach for this art house idea.
So let me get this straight. A huge bulbous head tells men with heads on their heads, that getting a head is bad, all while several girls not getting any head try to get some head out of Connery. All seems pretty logical to me. The camp plot cant decide whether it wants to be Barbarella, or Carry On Up The Crevice. It is trying to be edgy and surreal but the only thing it managed to do was ruin Connery's high profile reputation. Why did he do it then? Shardosh!
bizarre movie, but never boring LOLS - Calvin you will have to watch 'The Wild Geese' or 'North sea Hijack'
The floating head guy at the beginning was in Father Ted as the drunk quiz show host who jumps out of the window!!!
Damn, you're right. Brilliant.
@@MrPlannery He was also one of the prisoners on the convict planet in Alien 3! (It was on tv last night and It was the first time I noticed him in it and made the connection)
@@nicknewman7848well, I had to wiki him. He's been a guest actor on many a mediocre BBC drama, but also Hellraiser ("dinner guest") and The Professionals.
Speaking of Hellraiser, 'Pinhead' (Douglas Bradley) pops up in various BBC dramas too.
You know how people can spend years obsessively dismissing things as not worth a minute's consideration?
And you know how they can go on epic rants, pointing and desperately forcing laughter, explaining at length why their opinions are self-evidently true?
Of course you do, because they do it about Zardoz. Odd, that.
5:19 - I can’t believe you passed on calling it a ‘Mirrormid’. Or a ‘Myrapid’ if you’re a fan of spoonerisms.
Anyway, on an unrelated note, I’ve got an idea for a film: in a dystopian post-apocalyptic future, a religious order roams the land killing every man named Roy by whacking him in the balls to death, as decreed in their holy book ‘NO ROY’. Until it turns out that NO ROY is just a copy of Casino Royale that got badly damaged in the nuclear war/great flood/solar flare, whatever, and got misinterpreted by the clueless descendants of the survivors, who grew up with no knowledge of the pre-apocalypse civilisation. Haven’t worked out an ending, but I think it should end with everyone dying for no adequately explained reason - it’s gonna be deep, man!
Great video. This movie is weird. It's hard to watch it entirely with a straight face. I've see on a youtube video. Someone people were giving this the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.