Editing Zardoz (section)

==Reception==
[[Nora Sayre]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' wrote ''Zardoz'' "is science fiction that rarely succeeds in fulfilling its ambitious promises... Despite its pseudo-scientific gimcracks and a plethora of didactic dialogue, ''Zardoz'' is more confusing than exciting even with a frenetic, shoot-em-up climax".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Sayre|first=Nora|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/07/archives/the-screen-wayne-off-the-rangestars-asa-policeman-in-warnersmcq.html|title=The Screen: Wayne, Off the Range|date=1974-02-07|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-28|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> [[Roger Ebert]] of the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' gave it two-and-a-half stars out of four and called it a "genuinely quirky movie, a trip into a future that seems ruled by perpetually stoned set decorators...  The movie is an exercise in self-indulgence (if often an interesting one) by Boorman, who more or less had ''[[Blank cheque|carte blanche]]'' to do a personal project after his immensely successful ''[[Deliverance]]''".<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/zardoz-1974 | title =''Zardoz'' (review)| first = Roger | last = Ebert | author-link = Roger Ebert | newspaper = [[Chicago Sun Times]]}}</ref> [[Gene Siskel]] of the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' gave it one star out of four and called it "a message movie all right, and the message is that social commentary in the cinema is best restrained inside of a carefully-crafted story, not trumpeted with character labels, special effects, and a dose of despair that celebrates the director's humanity while chastising the profligacy of the audience".<ref>{{cite news |last=Siskel |first=Gene |date=19 March 1974 |title=Gloom and doom infect 'Zardoz' |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |at=Section 2, p. 4}}</ref> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' reported the "direction, good; script, a brilliant premise which unfortunately washes out in climactic sound and fury; and production, outstanding, particularly special visual effects which are among the best in recent years and belie the film's modest cost".<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Film Reviews: Zardoz |magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |date=13 January 1974 |page=13}}</ref>

[[Jay Cocks]] of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine called the film "visually bounteous", with "bright intervals of self-deprecatory humor that lighten the occasional pomposity of the material".<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Cocks |first=Jay |url=https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,942780,00.html |title=Cinema: Celtic Twilight |date=18 February 1974 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]}}</ref> [[Charles Champlin]] of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' was generally positive and wrote that its $1.5 million budget was "an unbelievably low price for the dazzle on the screen and a tribute to creative ingenuity and personal dedication. It is a film which buffs and would-be filmmakers are likely to be examining with interest for years to come".<ref>{{cite news |last=Champlin |first=Charles |date=3 February 1974 |title='Zardoz': It's Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |at=Calendar, pp. 1, 24, 45}}</ref> [[Pauline Kael]] of ''[[The New Yorker]]'' wrote that the script "lacks the human dimensions that would make us care about the big visual sequences" and burdened the actors with "unspeakable dialogue", and also remarked that Connery "acts like a man who agreed to do something before he grasped what it was".<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Kael |first=Pauline |author-link=Pauline Kael |date=18 February 1974 |title=The Current Cinema |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |pages=98–99}}</ref>

===Re-appraisal===
It has been noted that ''Zardoz'' has developed a [[cult following]].<ref name="Starlog Magazine Issue 056" /><ref>{{cite web |last1=Shankel |first1=Jason |last2=Stamm |first2=Emily |last3=Krell |first3=Jason |title=30 Cult Movies That Absolutely Everybody Must See |url=https://io9.gizmodo.com/30-cult-movies-that-absolutely-everybody-must-see-1538502596 |website=Gizmodo |date=7 March 2014|access-date=15 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Telotte |first1=J. P. |title=Science Fiction Double Feature: The Science Fiction Film as Cult Text |last2=Duchovnay |first2=Gerald |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-78138183-0 |page=75 |author-link=Jay Telotte}}</ref> In 1992, Geoff Boucher, writing in the ''Los Angeles Times'', felt that Boorman achieved his vision to a degree, and that "for fans of wild science fiction, the film is a trippy examination of what happens when intellect overpowers humanity and humans taste immortality".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Boucher |first=Geoff  |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-22-ol-768-story.html |title=Visual Technology Goes Wild in 'Zardoz' |date=22 October 1992 |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> [[Jonathan Rosenbaum]], reviewing in the ''[[Chicago Reader]]'', called it "John Boorman's most underrated film{{snd}}an impossibly ambitious and pretentious but also highly inventive, provocative, and visually striking SF adventure with metaphysical trimmings".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Rosenbaum|first=Jonathan|url=https://chicagoreader.com/film/zardoz-2/|title=Zardoz|website=[[Chicago Reader]]|language=en|date=1985-10-26|access-date=2020-04-29}}</ref>

In 2007, Will Thomas of ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire Magazine]]'' wrote of ''Zardoz'': "You have to hand it to John Boorman. When he's brilliant, he's brilliant (''Point Blank'', ''Deliverance'') but when he's terrible, he's ''really terrible''. A fascinating reminder of what cinematic science fiction used to be like before ''Star Wars'', this risible hodge-podge of literary allusions, highbrow porn, sci-fi staples, half-baked intellectualism and a real desire to do something revelatory misses the mark by a hundred miles but has elements{{snd}}its badness being one of them{{snd}}that make it strangely compelling".<ref name="empireonline.com" /> [[Channel 4]] called it "Boorman's finest film" and a "wonderfully eccentric and visually exciting sci-fi quest" that "deserves reappraisal".<ref name="ch4"/> In his audio commentary to the DVD/Blu-ray (first released in 2000, and included in subsequent releases), Boorman claimed it "was a very indulgent and personal film" but one he admits he may not have had the budget to properly achieve.<ref name="filmschoolrejects.com"/> It has since been the subject of re-appraisal and become a cult classic, described by Reader's Digest as "one of the wildest, most ambitious films of the 1970s."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/film-tv/retro-review-zardoz-the-wildest-film-of-the-70s |title=Retro review: Zardoz—the wildest film of the 70s - Reader's Digest |website=www.readersdigest.co.uk}}</ref>

The [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] reported an approval rating of {{RT data|score}}, with an average score of {{RT data|average}}, based on {{RT data|count}} reviews. Its consensus reads, "''Zardoz'' is ambitious and epic in scope, but its philosophical musings are rendered ineffective by its supreme weirdness and rickety execution".<ref name="rottomatoes">{{cite web |url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zardoz |title=Zardoz (1974) |website=Rotten Tomatoes |publisher=Fandango Media |access-date=10 November 2020}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film holds a weighted average score of 46 out of 100 based on nine critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Zardoz Reviews |url=https://www.metacritic.com/movie/zardoz |access-date=7 July 2023 |website=[[Metacritic]] |publisher=[[Fandom, Inc.]]}}</ref>