The Essentials: John Boorman’s Best Films

“Zardoz” (1974)
After a giant, critically acclaimed hit, a filmmaker will often get the chance to make their big expensive passion project. Sometimes it pays off in style, and sometimes it comes across as a giant, ill-conceived folly. “Zardoz,” Boorman’s follow-up to “Deliverance,” is decidedly in the second category, but it’s also a fascinating film that’s gained reappraisal over the years. Though Boorman certainly made superior films, it’s certainly should be considered as one of his most important works, for better or for worse.  Both written and helmed by the director, it’s a truly bonkers sci-fi picture set in a post-apocalyptic world where immortal Eternals rule over the Brutals, with the law laid down by Brutal Exterminators like Sean Connery’s Zed on the orders of a flying head called Zardoz. Riffing on “The Wizard Of Oz,” and satirizing the bourgeois hippies of the sexual revolution (the Eternals have been sex-free for a millennia before encountering Connery, clad memorably in one of cinema’s most ridiculous costumes), it’s silly, self-indulgent, on-the-nose and entirely singular. A filmmaker without a big hit (or an insecure star: this was only Connery’s second post-Bond role after exiting the franchise with “Diamonds Are Forever” ) would likely be too self-conscious to make something like this bizarre film, but as mockable a mess as “Zardoz” is, it’s a fascinating mess that you’re glad exists. What else would we screen on the wall at warehouse parties otherwise?

“Excalibur” (1981)
Returning to the idea after spending some of the 1970s on an ill-fated attempt to make a film of “The Lord Of The Rings,” Boorman finally got around to a King Arthur project he’d been toying with for over a decade with “Excalibur,” a big-budget, visually-lavish attempt to cram much of the myth and legend into one two-and-a-half hour movie. It’s semi-successful, but like its cousin in folly “Zardoz,” this film is a fascinating watch that both anticipates the modern-day trend for gritty big-budget reboots of fables and proves to be something much more distinctive. Based loosely by Boorman and co-writer Rospo Pallenberg on Sir Thomas Malory’s “Le Morte D’Arthur” but borrowing liberally from other Camelot-themed works, this true epic ranges from Arthur’s conception (via rape and magic) to his final battle against incestuous son Mordred. Yet its sweeping scope is part of the problem: the episodic structure feels like a race through the lore rather than a true examination. Spotty casting doesn’t help either: the film provides early breaks for greats like Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne & Ciaran Hinds, but the central trio of Arthur, Guineve and Lancelot are played by the miscast and uncharismatic Nigel Terry, Cherie Lunghi and Nicholas Clay, who are much less skilled at selling the clumsy dialogue than many of those better known actors. Yet it’s still compellingly watchable: Boorman gets the pastoral folklore better than most attempts at the story, it’s never less than beautiful to look at, and on a scene-by-scene basis, it’s legitimately compelling, especially when Nicol Williamson’s Merlin is involved. It might not work as a whole, but perhaps it never could (the idea of Boorman being allowed to tackle the material as a “Game Of Thrones”-style series is tantalizing).