A History of Bad Cinema Volume 1: Zardoz

{Note: This is the first in a continuing series on bad cinema. Not film that you watch and go, "that was bad." These are the films that are so bad that you invite friends over to watch them and revel in their outrageous misuse of film stock. Enjoy.}

I could start this history lesson with a lengthy opening paragraph on the many ways Zardoz is bad. I could craft a fine-tuned piece of observation and analysis. But apparently a picture tells a thousand words, so let me present this picture below:



You see what I mean? I can end this lesson here if I want to. But, oh boy do I not want to. Just take a long look at Sean Connery in thigh high boots, bandoleer and a red, uh, diaper? Cod piece? Slice of heaven? Thats not even to mention the awesome amount of manly hair. And the ponytail? Perfection.

You would think that early in pre-production of Zardoz someone would have taken a look at this costume and realized they were heading down a path that no filmmaker should take. This is the pivotal point of any bad film. The point when the entire disaster can be diverted and thousands of moviegoers spared. Sometimes people reach this point and think 'boy, maybe we shouldn't make a sequel to the Howard the Duck." Thankfully for us the year was 1974 and the people in charge of production were obviously on a wide variety of mind altering hallucinogenics.

Zardoz bafflingly tells the story of Zed (Sean Connery), a 'brutal' who lives in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Occasionally a giant floating stone head comes by and spits firearms out of its mouth while spouting phrases like "the gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds!" (Remember what I said about lots of drugs?). Anyway one day Zed hops a ride in the giant head, which is filled with frozen naked people, and lands in the Vortex. This of course is the last refuge of the intellectuals of the world. There Zed is studied, incites rebellion, uh, wears a wedding dress for some reason, and ultimately brings about the destruction of the Vortex. And somewhere in there we learns a shocking truth about Zardoz. Hint: If you have the brain capacity of a chimp you can figure it out.

So why is this movie so perfectly bad? Well for one, you spend most of the movie wondering how the hell they convinced Sean Connery to do this film. What aspect of it appealed to him? After playing James Bond for so many years did he think to himself, "Boy I would love to run around in a giant diaper for a couple months"? The man was an icon before this, and he went on to many more iconic roles afterwards. But this was dangerous territory. Remember Michael Caine was on top of the world and then made on too many horrible movies and ended up in Jaws 4.

Zardoz was written and Directed by John Boorman, who was just coming off the hit Deliverance, a pretty great movie best know for the rape of character actor Ned Beatty by a fearsome group of hillfolk. I understand that after a hit most directors want to do their dream project and people are willing to give them the keys to the kingdom. Boorman obviously had a lot of ideas in his head, and there was the possibility that he could have crafted an enduring classic. Zardoz has an interesting premise of privileged society decaying while living off the lower classes. But the execution is baffling and obtuse. Endless shots of mirrored halls and frail naked British women are meant to show the futuristic and alien aspect of the timeframe but only serve to make a film that has a very retro-hippie view of the future. It has not aged well.

I don't want to give away every little thing in this movie. If you haven’t seen it you will be amazed. You will quote it to friends. You may even buy the DVD to hear Boorman try to explain it on the commentary. But you will be entertained.

This movie is horrible. I highly recommend it.

PS: Boorman's next project was supposed to have been a 1977 live action version of Lord of the Rings. I am convinced this would have been the Gone with the Wind of bad movies. We will never know.