To be fair to Connery, Zardoz was right after 007. He was type casted and nobody would hire him. He had to do something different to get new work. Also, Zardoz is legit a good movie… If you get past the weird and laughable aesthetic choices, the plot is a decent sci fi plot.
But, did you watch it a second time? Honestly it’s awful the first watch because you can’t get past the aesthetic of it. When I watched it again I realized the movie itself is pretty good. It’s practically the definition of a good bad movie.
I don’t blame you. I took a long time between viewings. I liked it enough that I had my goalie mask painted like the big stone head. I figured it was funny and a stone head was appropriate for a goalie.
Bear in mind that very few people thought a film adaptation of LOTR was actually going to be any good. It seems obvious now, but it was not seen a really viable project with how trilogies were made at the time (with many years between them) the amount of budget needed, and the effects challenges. The guys who made the movies deserve a lot of credit for doing something so well that it looks obvious when they are done, but little thinks like how to do the hobbits were seen as effects challenges with no real solution that wouldn’t look stupid or be insanely expensive.
Connery would have been the biggest name in the film and getting attached to something that wound up looking like shit or making him look stupid would have been a bigger problem for him than anyone. Again, its obvious that they turned out great, but look at what Peter Jackson made before this and its not really as obvious a choice as one would think now (although I am personally a fan of his early work, I get why people might not be and why people maybe wouldn’t hand him the biggest film franchise in history).
And just for a fun tidbit, at the time that Connery bailed on the offer the film was being produced by Weinstein, so I get maybe not wanting to work with that dirtbag. They almost lost Liv Tyler for the same reason and reportedly did lose them Ashley Judd and Mia Sorvino, who flat out refused to be attached to anything involving him.
To be fair to Connery, Zardoz was right after 007. He was type casted and nobody would hire him. He had to do something different to get new work. Also, Zardoz is legit a good movie… If you get past the weird and laughable aesthetic choices, the plot is a decent sci fi plot.
I assumed it was going to be, but when I watched I found it aggressively terrible.
But, did you watch it a second time? Honestly it’s awful the first watch because you can’t get past the aesthetic of it. When I watched it again I realized the movie itself is pretty good. It’s practically the definition of a good bad movie.
I have not. Maybe I’ll try it again someday because I actually have more than once hated a movie first try and liked it on second viewing.
I don’t blame you. I took a long time between viewings. I liked it enough that I had my goalie mask painted like the big stone head. I figured it was funny and a stone head was appropriate for a goalie.
And then Highlander, so it was no wonder he was a bit wary when it came to LOTR.
But Highlander was awesome.
It won the Academy Award for best movie ever made.
My shubmarine doeshn’t react well to bulletsh, Ryan.
You’ve really gotta admire his outright contempt at the thought of even attempting a Russian accent in that movie.
His character is actually Lithuanian, so he shouldn’t have a Russian accent. Not that Scottish is accurate…
It was a thriller movie in the 90s for American audiences.
Whether he had contempt or not the accents did not matter. Just needed something to indicate “not American”
“Some things in here don’t react well to bullets”
Also, Zardoz is where he came up with the policy of not acting in movies that he doesn’t “get”.
Well, ok. But we are comparing it with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
(But then, committing to a trilogy probably has a huge opportunity cost.)
Bear in mind that very few people thought a film adaptation of LOTR was actually going to be any good. It seems obvious now, but it was not seen a really viable project with how trilogies were made at the time (with many years between them) the amount of budget needed, and the effects challenges. The guys who made the movies deserve a lot of credit for doing something so well that it looks obvious when they are done, but little thinks like how to do the hobbits were seen as effects challenges with no real solution that wouldn’t look stupid or be insanely expensive.
Connery would have been the biggest name in the film and getting attached to something that wound up looking like shit or making him look stupid would have been a bigger problem for him than anyone. Again, its obvious that they turned out great, but look at what Peter Jackson made before this and its not really as obvious a choice as one would think now (although I am personally a fan of his early work, I get why people might not be and why people maybe wouldn’t hand him the biggest film franchise in history).
And just for a fun tidbit, at the time that Connery bailed on the offer the film was being produced by Weinstein, so I get maybe not wanting to work with that dirtbag. They almost lost Liv Tyler for the same reason and reportedly did lose them Ashley Judd and Mia Sorvino, who flat out refused to be attached to anything involving him.
Frankly LOTR is way overrated. Both the books (and therefore) the movies.
That’s a bold thing to say out loud in these parts… I like your moxie.
That moxie can be thrown into mount doom and incinerated