Editing Zardoz (section)

===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>