Thanos Thursday: Avengers- Infinity War

WARNING! Spoiler Alert for the entire franchise to date! If you're not caught up, stop reading now! (Note: This does NOT include the recent post-Avengers flick Ant Man and The Wasp, so if you haven't seen that, don't worry- no spoilers for that film.)

Every once in a blue moon, you go and see a movie with an ending that just floors an audience into dead silence, leaving them sitting there, stunned, unable to believe what they've just seen.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that The Empire Strikes Back had that sort of reaction, but I was too young to have seen that one in theaters, at least not the first time around. (I did see the re-release, but I'd already seen it on home video/cable by then.)

More recently, A Quiet Place garnered that same sort of reaction- but not for long. In the screening I intended, the silence in that case was broken by a resounding- and hilarious- "Oh hell, no!" Understandable, given that the damn thing ends right in the middle of the action.

There was no such reaction at the Avengers screening. Instead, everyone sat in relative silence, and it became clear that everyone was waiting for a glimmer of hope in the ever-present post-credits bonus scenes. In the place of the traditional first bonus scene, there was nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The silence continued, getting ever more uncomfortable. Surely, there would be one, after all that? Right? After the endless scroll finally drew to a close, a bonus scene arrived...only to offer more of the same. Holy shit! They really went there!

To be fair, there was indeed a glimmer of hope, though some were likely confused by it in the moment. There was also a gratifying laugh, courtesy of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who ended his time on earth with exactly the word you'd think he would, much to the amusement of many.

So, it wasn't a complete downer, but there was still no getting around the fact that they totally went there. Of course, there has to be catch. Isn't there always? But there's no denying that the bodies hit the floor in this one, from literally the first scene onward, and at least some of those people/aliens aren't coming back, I should think.

Hell, I'm not sure I'd want them all to, as it would be a cheat of monumental proportions. It's become a common thing, as of late, to "kill" off certain characters on a show, only to bring them back later on, typically with a lot of fanfare, but nonetheless, it's been done enough at this point, you can completely understand where some people would be a little, if not a lot, skeptical.

For me, the mother of all such scenes was the infamous "Buffy's dead" plot-line on Joss Whedon's seminal TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Even back then, before such things were common, we all knew Buffy was coming back. After all, it wouldn't be much of a show without the titular heroine. But it was the way they did it that truly shocked.

(Spoiler alert for those unfamiliar- just skip the next couple of paragraphs if you want to maintain the twist. I'll let you know in bold type when it's over.)

As it turns out, there was no cheat- Buffy was unequivocally, undeniably dead. Deader than a door-nail, down to being buried in a coffin six feet under. So, when the gang used literal witchcraft to bring her back, they full-on brought her back from death in the process, and even more shocking- they dragged her out of Heaven to do it. And I do mean Heaven with a capital "H."

Needless to say, she wasn't pleased. And, not unlike the people (and creatures, of course) in the book/movie Pet Sematary, our beloved Buffy came back a little, shall we say, different. Wouldn't you, if you were dragged out of Heaven? Thanks for nothing, everyone!

Spoiler over!

Since then, we've seen variations of the same thing, with any number of beloved TV characters "dying," only to return a few episodes later, or, in the case of movies, a little later on in the movie, or, if it was an ongoing series, in a later movie, i.e. the Lord of the Rings.

Given that, I can see where some might be a little skeptical. I mean, for instance, are they really going to kill off, say, Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), for good, just after he jump-started a billion-dollar franchise? Seems unlikely. Likewise, they just rebooted Spider-Man (Tom Holland), and it was the second-biggest ever film released in the franchise to date.

So, yeah, there's no way those two aren't coming back. But, in those cases, it's the journey, not the destination. In other words, we all know they're coming back, it's just a matter of how. And it's worth noting that, tellingly, among those left standing, are the core OG Avengers, seemingly in their entirety. (Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is elsewhere, completely MIA from the movie, so we don't know his fate- but if the rest of them being alive is any indication, he should be okay.)

That said, it does seem likely that those who died earlier in the film really are dead, unless they pull a Superman and "rewind" time- after all, Thanos (James Brolin) himself did it, so why can't they? But I suspect they won't go that far, and, at best, will only go back to the place in time before Thanos snapped his fingers and stop him before he does that.

(I should mention here that I think I have read the comics back in the day, but it's been a long time and I haven't read them since, so I genuinely can't remember one way or another, and I have no intention on going online and looking it up to find out- I can wait. Even if I did, I suspect they might tweak things just enough to surprise fans who think they know where all this is going.)

So, going by that logic, those that died early on in the film are legitimately dead, and won't be coming back, and that's still a pretty sizable list. We're talking Heimdall (Idris Elba), Loki (Tom Hiddleston), presumably The Collector (Benecio del Toro) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana), plus maybe Vision (Paul Bettany), though they could "rewind" things just enough to save him, at least. I don't know that they'll go back any further than that.

The other option is that those killed in Thanos' actions at the end aren't really dead in the first place, but rather have been "taken" elsewhere, by which I mean they disintegrated on Earth, but reappeared somewhere else in the universe, or on an alternate Earth- think the recent "Earth X" story-line on the CW's DC-verse shows, in which there are, I think, some 52 different Earths, each with their own versions of the main characters, all of which have done things somewhat differently.

In Avengers- Infinity War, Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) mentions that there are millions of potential futures, but only one in which good triumphs over evil, or rather, in which Thanos is defeated. I make the distinction because, as I pointed out in my review of Black Panther, the villain here actually means well, to a certain extent, it's just the way he goes about it that's evil. 

When you think about it, Thanos really wants to save the universe, not destroy it, in order to preserve it from the full-on destruction that would ensue if the population was left unchecked. By making the hard choice to half the population, he saves the universe, not completely destroys it, and that's an important distinction, as it makes him oddly sympathetic in a way.

In other words, Thanos isn't a villain, per se, so much as his actions are villainous at times- see what I mean? I mean, don't get me wrong, he can definitely be an evil dude- look at the way he tortures Nebula (Karen Gillan), for example. He doesn't care who he tortures or kills in pursuit of his goal- even his own stepdaughter.

That makes him more evil than good, obviously, but his ultimate goal is indeed noble, as crazy as the way he goes about it is. It's those types of distinctions and strong writing and plotting that sets Marvel movies apart from the rest of the pack, and is the reason Marvel is often cited as having the superior films of those making this sort of thing, which is to say, comic book-based films.

(On a side note, as much crap as DC gets for fumbling the ball in terms of the writing and plotting in their films as of late, oddly enough, where they fail on the big screen, they excel on the small one. While Marvel can be hit (Legion, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, The Gifted) or miss (Iron Fist, the oft-spotty Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), in this area, DC has been pretty consistent, with something for everyone, from the lighter tone of The Flash, Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow to the more serious, gritty Gotham, Arrow, and Black Lightning.)

Getting back to the ending, it's hard to say what the solution to the problem that Thanos' actions represent is, but one thing is indeed made clear- there is one. Like, literally just one. The film makes it a point to acknowledge that there is only a one-in-millions chance for the heroes to succeed, but there is at least one, which is something.

What that method is remains to be seen, but I do think Dr. Strange knew what he was doing when he handed over his stone to Thanos to save Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.). I don't know about you, but after the earlier deaths in the film, and with rumblings that Downey's time with the franchise was limited, I thought his character might be a goner, but then what happened, happened- and I think it happened for a reason. 

I think that Stark is crucial to whatever the plan is to save those that were lost, and Dr. Strange knew that, which is why he made the trade to save Stark in exchange for the stone, even against Stark's protests. I also think Dr. Strange knew that he had to die, along with everyone else who did, to make things happen the way they needed to in order for this one-in-millions chance to succeed.

So, there's definitely a method to this madness, and I think it not only involves Stark, but all of the core Avengers. I think that, with them collaborating together to solve the problem, and only them, can Thanos be defeated, and I think Dr. Strange knew that, too, and just had to trust that he would be brought back after death by their actions. 

Of course, there's the other option I mentioned as well, which is that no one who died in Thanos' massacre is really dead, but rather re-routed elsewhere. Or perhaps just Dr. Strange. After all, he has the power to use and bend other universes to his will, and the ability to cross over to other dimensions. Perhaps this ability was key to saving himself and will come into play in the future installment. Either way, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

As to what part each of the surviving Avengers will play in the movie to come, it's impossible to say, but I do think each of them will play a crucial part in their own way, and that each of their abilities will be key to fulfilling the task at hand. We'll just have to wait and see what that is, and what they will do to resurrect (or whatever) our fallen heroes- not to mention everyone else who died/crossed over to another dimension. 

As for the movie as a whole, I thought it did a really good job of juggling all the characters, which was a tricky bit of business, to be sure. I heard some critics complain that there wasn't enough "character development" for their liking. What the what? Nineteen movies' worth of character development isn't enough for you? Jesus.

Sure, some characters are newer than others, and as such, have less development than the others do, but overall, I thought the writers have done a masterful job of holding all this insanity together. I mean, it cannot be easy making sure the continuity and through-lines to all this is kept straight and logical, but I think they've done a pretty solid job. 

Take a look at some of the dubious plotting in the more recent X-Men movies in contrast, and tell me this group of writers hasn't done a better job than theirs has, and they've only had eleven films in comparison- less if you count the more recent entries, beginning with First Class, as a sort of soft "reboot." (And mind you, I dig those films, in spite of that. Well, okay, maybe not The Last Stand and the first two Wolverines.)

In short, the Avengers films are less about strong character development that the adventures of characters you already know and love. We don't need extensive character development for people we already know, right? We just need a brief update on where they're at, at this given moment, within the given ongoing story-lines, and we get that here. 

I mean, granted, in some cases, it's decidedly brief, as some characters show up right in the middle of the action, and there isn't a lot of time to play catch-up, but damn, it's already a two-and-a-half-hour movie, do we really need it to be longer just to sneak in some stuff of that nature? I don't think so. We'll get to that after the current crisis is dealt with.

I do think that the next Avengers movie will have more character development than this one, simply by default. After all, there will be that much less characters to deal with. As such, the writers can't help but have more wiggle room in that regard, so hang in there, haters. You'll get your development in the next film, I expect. 

In the meantime, there's the current release Ant-Man and the Wasp, which we'll get to at a later date, and the forthcoming Captain Marvel, set to be released on March 8th, 2019, with the next Avengers flick due shortly thereafter on May 3rd, 2019, which closes out the so-called Phase Three of the MCU. (I'm not 100% sure on where the also-forthcoming next entries in the Spider-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy franchises fall, Phase-wise, but their very existence would seem to suggest the characters in those respective films will return, so there's that.)

Please also note that, for those in the know, this film ended with an Easter Egg of sorts in that the last thing that Nick Fury did before his death was to send out a message to Captain Marvel. I'm sure even those who were confused by that know by now what it meant, but obviously, it indicates that the story begun here will dovetail somehow with that film. 

My guess would be that, as the story-line from that film (as in Captain Marvel, the movie) wraps up, Captain Marvel, the character, will receive the text (or distress signal or whatever) at the end, possibly in a post-credit scene, and make her way to the point in time this film is set, somehow. How she does that is open to interpretation, but I've no doubt it will happen. (I should mention here that I'm less familiar with Captain Marvel as a character, so I'm not entirely sure about the exact nature of her powers beyond being one of the strongest superheroes in the comics, period.)

So, there you have it. I thought Avengers- Infinity War was a fine entry in the ongoing franchise, and if it was lacking some of former Avengers scribe (and Buffy creator, I might add, going back to what I talking about earlier) Joss Whedon's trademark humor, it wasn't really trying to be that kind of film, either. 

This isn't meant to be a "fun" film, at least in the broader sense of the term, but rather more of a serious one, in order to drive home how high the stakes are. As such, I think the more sober-minded writing here was fine, and it's not as if the film was completely without a sense of humor or fun, it's just that it was meant to be more of an intense adventure than some of the previous entries in the MCU, which is fine.

There's no harm in the occasional straight-forward entry in the series, when you know that a more "fun" one is just around the corner, as it was with Ant-Man and the Wasp. I also think that Captain Marvel will be a little more light-hearted as well, before the second part of this one hopefully finishes the current story-line with both humor and heart, albeit likely with more intensity than either of those films, given where this one leaves off. 

Either way, I enjoyed Avengers- Infinity War tremendously, and my only complaint is that we have to wait until next summer to find out how it ends! 😭

Marvel Monday: Black Panther

Writer's Note: No "Monster Monday" this week, as I'm going to play catch-up with some of the newer movies I've seen but haven't reviewed this week for some all-new features. That also means no "Wayback Wednesday" and likely no "Flashback Friday," either- though that one may be subject to change if I can squeeze something in. 

In addition, next week I'll be starting my first full franchise review, to be followed by another in quick succession later on in September, hopefully. The idea is to do a major studio franchise review first, then an independent one next time around. You'll just have to wait and see what they are.

After that, I'll be covering the Halloween franchise in its entirety, culminating in my review of the brand-new entry, set to debut in theaters October 19th, which I could not be more excited about. 

In the meantime, I've long been wanting to write about the first two Marvel movies of the year, Black Panther and Avengers- Infinity War, so here goes, beginning with the former.

Beware: spoilers abound, so read with caution if you haven't seen them yet! 



After the groundbreaking debut of the first major female-centric superhero movie last year, Wonder Woman, it was only right that other barriers in the sub-genre would start to fall as well. Marvel might have dropped the ball on the female superhero thing- Black Widow should have had her own movie a long time ago, IMHO, and hopefully, still will on down the line- but thankfully, they rebounded nicely with Black Panther, the first major superhero flick to feature a prominently African-American cast.

Mind you, it's not completely without precedent, as die-hard fans of the sub-genre will recall the Blade franchise (also from Marvel) and Spawn (which is about to be rebooted soon) way back in the late 90's-early 2000's. But there's no denying that Black Panther was a different kind of animal, given that Blade is a vampire and Spawn is a demon literally resurrected from Hell.

Notice a pattern there? Kind of sends an oddly mixed message, doesn't it? On the one hand- yay! Black superheroes! On the other, um, did they have to be kind of evil? That's Hollywood for you. Don't get me wrong, I love both of those characters and was an avid Spawn fan in particular. But yeah, hard to get behind that sort of thing entirely, given the nature of the content. 

Black Panther handily rectifies all of that by making its central star unabashedly a good guy, and yet, like many a superhero before him, a reluctant one. After all, T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) didn't ask to be the Black Panther, he became it after his father was killed in a prior entry in the ongoing Marvel-verse, Captain America: Civil War.

Since then, T'Challa has more than risen to the occasion, and with this film, he finally gets his own movie, complete with his own alluring universe, the glorious Wakanda, the likes of which arguably haven't been seen on the big screen since James Cameron's Avatar- though I suppose a case could be made for the universe created by Luc Besson in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. However, that movie was dead in the water, so... yeah, not quite the same thing, really.

As with Avatar's Pandora, Wakanda proved to be a place audiences were more than willing to revisit, with the film grossing a jaw-dropping $1.3 million worldwide, thus all-but-ensuring a return visit at some point, not to mention showing that Hollywood's outdated notion that black film-goers are a "niche" audience is patently ridiculous.

Indeed, the film was a success across-the-board with every kind of audience, also disproving the notion that only black audiences will go and see a film with a prominently African-American cast. I mean, hell, even my mom saw it, and she's not exactly the target audience for superhero films of any kind, period.  

Where do I begin with this one? I'd be harder pressed to name something I didn't like about it than something I did. Let's start with the cast, which is across-the-board great. In addition to the effortlessly charismatic Boseman, who I was already a fan of from his superlative turn as James Brown in the biopic Get on Up; we also have the excellent Danai Gurira, easily one of the best things on TV's The Walking Dead, as Okoye; and Oscar winner Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave), as Nakia. 

Another thing I love about this film is that the women are completely bad-ass in it. Okoye is the head of the all-female special forces, the Dora Milaje, that serve as T'Challa's bodyguards. Nakia is an undercover spy that, when we first meet her, is working to try and free a group of enslaved women, and is willing to forgo being T'Challa's significant other to do it. 

Meanwhile, T'Challa's sister, Shuri, winningly played by Letitia Wright (TV's Humans), is a teenage wunderkind that serves as the movie's version of James Bond's "Q," which is to say, the one who provides T'Challa's and his associates with all the latest cool tech toys. All of this is to say that, T'Challa's back-up team is entirely compromised of tough, kick-ass women, making this film as much of a continuation of female awesomeness on display in Wonder Woman last year, as it is of African-Americans. 

Indeed, they're not just his back-up-team: he treats them as the equals they are. A nice trick, that. Factor in the ending of Avengers: Infinity War (more on that later), and Marvel clearly has more than taken up the slack on its failure to feature strong women in a more prominent role moving forward. The women here are front and center, kicking ass right alongside T'Challa, not merely serving as auxiliaries to take up the slack he can't handle on his own. They're key elements to his success- he literally couldn't do it without them. 

In addition, Marvel has also been stepping up its game in the villain department as of late. Unlike some of the villains of the past in films like this, the one in this film is complex, delicately layered and extremely well-thought-out. As played by director Ryan Coogler's go-to fave actor Michael B. Jordan (also in Coogler's Fruitvale Station and Creed), N'Jadaka, aka Erik "Killmonger" Stevens is the best kind of villain- one with a completely understandable motive.

This isn't a guy that just wants to watch the world burn just because- he has his reasons for doing what he does, and the thing is, remarkably enough, you can see his point. As N'Jadaka points out, Wakanda has access to all this incredible tech and the like that could help turn the tide for those of their spiritual brothers and sisters out there struggling to keep their heads above water against all the gang violence, police brutality and so forth. That's actually a pretty noble goal, when you think about it. 

Of course, as a villain, his way of going about it is what's misguided. But once again, understandable. You see, as we see in a flashback, all of this could have been avoided, had T'Challa's father simply brought N'Jadaka back to Wakanda with him after killing his father. Sure, it would have been an uphill battle, but it also would have avoided a lot of drama that ensued, being as how it left N'Jadaka behind to suffer, scheme and plot revenge against Wakanda and T'Challa's father.

That T'Challa recognizes this and ultimately seeks to try and rectify it in the end by changing the rules of the game and stepping Wakanda out of the shadows for the first time in history anyway is a testament to how strong the writing is here. N'Jadaka may be a villain driven by rage and revenge, but he also has a point. Why idly sit by when your people are suffering when you can actually do something about it?

That's heady stuff for a superhero movie, and it's also what makes Black Panther such a strong entry in the Marvel-verse, and in the sub-genre in general. As with Wonder Woman, the first DC movie in many a moon to actually break some new ground, superhero-wise, Black Panther also raises the game not just by simply being the first superhero flick with a prominently African-American cast, but by being so well-written (by Coogler and Joe Robert Cole, who also co-wrote The People vs. O.J. Simpson), thought-out and executed in general, in a way that puts a lot of these sorts of movies to absolute shame.

In short, this isn't just a solid superhero flick- it's one of the best such films I've ever seen, period. I'd have to really think about it, in terms of how I'd rank it amongst the best of the best, but it's definitely up there on the list- if not Top Five, certainly Top 10. Maybe one day I'll actually take a stab at such a list, but for now, it'll have to do. Either way, even if this sort of thing isn't typically your cup of tea, you might be surprised at how much you like it. 

Can you dig it? I knew that you could. 😎

Stay tuned for my take on Avengers: Infinity War later this week! 

Flashback Friday: Zardoz (1974)

You know you're in for one hell of a ride when a movie begins with a disembodied head with a mustache and goatee literally drawn on his face (seemingly with a black Magic Marker) and a blue towel on his head, who directly addresses you/the audience as it bounces around the screen like a low-fi version of Pong with only one player. "Is God in show business, too?" he says as he floats off. Not if this movie is any indication.

Reportedly, writer/director John Boorman added this prologue after the fact when he saw that audiences were confused by the film that followed, in hopes of helping better communicating his vision. Um, it doesn't. But it does set the tone for the wacky experience that is the movie Zardoz.

After that oddball opening, we begin the film in earnest, as a large stone head floats onto the screen, worshipers gathering below to listen to its wise words. Pray tell, what worldly knowledge will this God-like presence intone? 

"The penis is evil," it booms. "Guns are good." It then spews forth from its gaping maw a host of firearms and tells them to go and seek out the "fornicators" and kill them before the "Brutals" breed and fill the earth with more like them. Okay, then.

Just when you think things can't possibly get weirder, onto the screen steps no less than the OG James Bond himself, Sean Connery, with long hair braided into a pony-tail, a sizable handlebar mustache, bandoleers criss-crossed over his bare-but-decidedly-hairy chest. 

Clad only in a way too tight red diaper and knee-high boots, Connery manages to be the personification of 70's masculinity and look utterly ridiculous at the same time. And all of this occurs before the title credits even finish rolling! Such are the pleasures that Zardoz has to offer.

Believe it or not, things only get weirder and crazier from there. Sneaking into the massive stone head, Connery's character, Zed, stows away and flies back to its destination: an Utopian society called The Vortex populated by The Eternals, a group of immortals for whom the Brutals grow food, in hopes of being left to their own devices in the wastelands in which they live. 

With the arrival of Zardoz, however, the Brutals are thrown into a tizzy and begin to revolt against their oppressors- and each other. As groups of them make their way across the world, slaughtering and raping as they go, The Eternals capture Zed upon his arrival to study one of these Brutals and see what makes them tick, in hopes of staving off the impending revolution. Or something. 

Actually, there's also a contingent that seems to have tired of being immortal and actually wants to die, and see the Brutal revolution as a means to an end for achieving that. They also want to use Zed to help in this quest, so a sort of back-and-forth occurs, as the side that wants to die argues with those who want to fight for their right to live and combat the Brutals with everything they have, even if it means sinking to their level of violence, and becoming what they most fear.

Perhaps needless to say, it's a lot to take in, but it's also surprisingly timely, given the parallels one could make to the way things are in America at the moment, what with the small 1% contingent holding all the major wealth in the States, while the 99% suffer as the middle class dwindles to next-to-nothing and poverty reigns supreme. In other words, it's the haves-vs.-the-have-nots, which is more or less what is going on in this movie.

That said, Zardoz manages to be both thought-provoking and near-unbearably pretentious at the same time in a way that only late 60's-early 70's "high concept" pieces can be. There's a striking innocence to the proceedings that's admittedly charming as hell- for instance the casual way one man kisses another towards the end of the film at a key point, which was no doubt far more shocking at the time than it is now.

At the same time, you've got Connery in full-on 70's testosterone mode, hot off of his latest go-round as Bond, no less, sticking out like a sore thumb amongst all the insanity going on around him. Has ever a part been more dreadfully miscast? And yet, it works precisely because he stands out in the crowd. 

After all, he's supposed to be an outsider that's strikingly different from all of those around him, so, in another way, it's dead-on casting. If this were an American film or a US remake of it, for instance, Burt Reynolds would have been perfect in the role, given the distinctly 70's masculinity he represented at the time. I think that's the point. (He was allegedly offered the role, as Boorman had worked with him in the classic Deliverance, but Reynolds had to turn it down because of health concerns at the time.)

That said, though, there's no denying that Connery's very presence, his vibe and his unique style of acting really calls attention to itself in a way that makes the whole thing laughable as all get out. Don't get me wrong- Connery's a fine actor under normal circumstances, even if he's basically just being himself in most every role. But here, what makes him unique and beloved as an actor just turns the whole affair into high camp of the first order. 

I mean, try not to laugh by the point the film plops Connery down into a freaking wedding dress. Yep, it's true- the manliest of men, James Fucking Bond himself, dons a wedding dress in the movie- that's how insane this thing is. (Reportedly, Connery was none too happy about it, either, and only begrudgingly agreed to it in the end.)

This film is jam-packed with ludicrous scenarios and dialogue, ensuring a whole lot of silly fun for any group of people who get together to watch it, or those who choose to brave it alone. Wait until you get a (ahem) load of the scene in which the scientists of the bunch get together to try and puzzle out what causes men to get an erection, complete with helpful illustrations and "stimulating" visuals, including mud wrestling women! 

By the time you get to the nutty, psychedelic climax, which features Connery uttering such bon mots as "Stay close to me- inside my aura!" and the take-down of the artificial intelligence configuration the Tabernacle (which is basically just a hall of mirrors), if you're the right kind of bad movie fan, you should be completely in love with this one.

One of my favorite moments is the scene in which Zed tries to outfox the Tabernacle, a la 2001's famous "Hal" sequence, but WAY sillier. I think I would have gone into complete hysterics if Hal had intoned the phrase "You've penetrated me! There is no escape- you are within me. Come into my center!" at any point in that movie. Here, it's hilariously overwrought and totally giggle-inducing. 

Indeed, between this sort of thing, and all the sort of homoerotic imagery in general in this film, his subsequent movie Excalibur and, of course, the infamous climax of his Deliverance ("Squeal like a pig!"), one can't help but wonder if Boorman was perhaps working through some stuff, lol. (For the record, he's ostensibly straight, with two wives and seven kids, some of whom have cameos in this movie.)

Whatever the case, it's a hoot of a movie that should be a great time for bad movie aficionados. Between Connery's all-too-straight-faced acting style, to the much more game cast's amusing turns (in particular John Alderton and Niall Buggy) to the whacked out sets and randomly-and-strategically-placed naked people scattered about the sets for seemingly no reason, this is just plain bad movie nirvana. 

Everyone knows Connery, so no real need to get into his career, and we've talked a bit about Boorman- other notable titles of his include Point Blank, the woefully misguided Exorcist II: The Heretic, The Emerald Forest, Hope & Glory, Beyond Rangoon, The Tailor of Panama and Queen and Country- so let's move on to the supporting cast. 

As Connery's leading lady, there's a young Charlotte Rampling, in her late twenties at the time. Rampling made her debut in the classic Georgy Girl at twenty, after a massively-successful and iconic career as a model in the 60's beforehand. She would continue to model and serve as a muse to various artists over the ensuing years.

But she always had a quirkier, darker side, which led her in short order to more left-of-center art-house-type films, typically of the European variety, including The Damned, 'Tis Pity She's a Whore and the somewhat infamous The Night Porter, which tackled S&M long before the 50 Shades movies, to say nothing of so-called Nazisploitation. 

Other notable movies include the cult classics Vanishing Point, Asylum and Angel Heart; Farewell My Lovely, the killer whale epic Orca, The Verdict, Swimming Pool, Babylon A.D., Melancholia, 45 Years, Assassin's Creed, The Sense of an Ending and Red Sparrow. She was also in the cult horror TV hit Dexter. 

Her life is a fascinating, no-holds-barred existence, and she's always been one to speak her mind and do her own thing, which has gotten her into trouble from time to time, be it posing nude in Playboy or in racy movies like Porter, or calling out hypocrites where she saw them, sometimes to the detriment of her own career. Rampling is undeniably an actress that marches to the beat of her own drummer. 

Next up is John Alderton, who played Zed's would-be "Friend." Primarily a stage actor in his early years, he later turned to British TV with considerable success, though big-screen stardom sadly eluded him. 

Notable credits include The Girl-Getters and Hannibal Brooks (both with Oliver Reed), Duffy, Please Sir! (a rare starring role, which inspired a TV series spin-off), It Shouldn't Happen to a Vet, Clockwork Mice and arguably his biggest hit, the internationally-successful Calendar Girls, with Helen Mirren and Julie Walters. 

As the titular Zardoz, aka Arthur Frayn, he whose bouncing head sets off the proceedings, we have the delightfully-named Niall Buggy. Aside from the two leads, he's had far and away the biggest success, with lots of memorable turns in movies you've likely familiar with, whatever you're into.

Interestingly, Zardoz was his motion picture debut, so you can see where his career might have ended before it began, given the film's poor performance at the box office, but thankfully, such was not the case. A likable Irish actor, he quickly rebounded with a series of other movies that were much better received. 

His credits include The Purple Taxi (also with Rampling), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (based on the classic James Joyce novel), Philadelphia Here I Come, King David, Hellraiser (yep, the Clive Barker one), The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, Close My Eyes, The Pope Must Diet, The Playboys, Alien 3, Anna Karina, The Butcher Boy, The Reckoning, The Libertine, Casanova, Mamma Mia!, Brideshead Revisited, The Duel and Mr. Turner.  

Other notable actors in the film include Sara Kestleman (Lisztomania, Lady Jane) as May, who suggests that The Eternals study Zed; Sally Anne Newton (Blueblood, Intimate Reflections) as the lovely Avalow; and Bosco Hogan (Count Dracula's Jonathan Harker, TV's The Tudors and The Borgias) as George Saden. 

Zardoz is the perfect example of a "personal" film that a director makes after the massive success of another film- in this case, Deliverance- which fails miserably but is often re-assessed in one way or another years after the fact in a more positive way.

While no one is likely to confuse Zardoz with a lost masterpiece, there's no denying that it does have a vibe all its own, and which is not quite like any other film you can name, in spite of how it "borrows" liberally from certain other films, notably 1984 and 2001, which it helpfully name-checks on the poster to get in front of any complaints to that end. 

I do legitimately appreciate the bent set design, costuming and color schemes, which are out-there but fun, helping immeasurably to set this film apart from the rest of the pack in a big way- once you've seen this film, you won't soon forget it, and those elements are a big part of it.
Another is the memorable score by David Munrow (who also scored Ken Russell's even crazier The Devils) and Boorman's visual sense, which is often arresting, even when it revolves around silliness or clichés we've all seen before, i.e. the hall of mirrors sequence, the weird stuff montage. 

Boorman, while refusing to acknowledge the camp factor- save maybe when he discusses the infamous Sean Connery-in-a-wedding-dress sequence- steadfastly defends the film in the commentary, and makes a good case for his intentions, even if the film itself doesn't quite back it up. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, though.

Good on him for trying, at least, which is more than you can say for some directors that refuse to work outside of their given comfort zone. I'd rather watch this five times in a row than any given five Michael Bay movies, for instance. Also, I dig that when Boorman does fail, he fails big, you know? (See also Exorcist II, which is equally camptastic.)

The film is readily available on DVD and Blu-Ray (aim for the Twilight Time edition, if you can find it), and it's worth it to get the best visuals on this one as you can, given how colorful the film is. And that commentary by Boorman is definitely worth at least a single listen.

I should also add that, in spite of my good-natured grousing, this film absolutely has its fans who take it seriously and even critics have reassessed the film in a (mostly) positive way, so there's that. What makes some people laugh hysterically may make others wholly fascinated. I'll leave it up to you to determine which one you are. Maybe even a little of both, like me. 

Check it out!

Emoji Review: 👳👹💨🔫💪💥👨💨👹💨🗾👸👸💪👨💤👨👷👉👳💍🔍💣💥👪💀👨👸💑💨👶💤👴👵👦💨👴👵💀