Caligula

g

Caligula_360P

c

Yeah

Heard a lot about the film, and decided to see it after finding out Peter O'Toole and a few credible actors were in it. After watching this movie, I couldn't believe someone actually committed this screenplay to film. Storywise, let's just say it's Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" living out his life in Roman times. For those who haven't seen "Clockwork", basically a spoiled brat interested in perversities. Yes, a lot of the scenes are just plain gross and shocking, but not necessarily in a good way. If you consider Let's just say that half of the movie is a combo of a S&M and * director's movie with a colossal budget. This would have been a better movie if it explored Caligula's mind and at least tried to analyze why he performed the atrocities he did. Any person who has read or seen documentaries on Caligula could see that the director chose the most depraved acts and committed it to film, yet nothing is mentioned about his megalomaniac thoughts on being one of the gods and how this really lead to his subsequent demise. To think that actors of O'Toole's and McDowell's caliber actually appeared in this film is unthinkable.

Where to start..... First off, the sets are wonderful. They are lavish and look authentic of the time, except as if a madman on acid was given a gigantic budget and told to "go at it!" Peter O'Toole is wonderful as the aging Tiberius. Malcolm McDowell gives a great performance as the young Caligula who kills his way to the throne of the Roman Emperor and then soon leads a legacy of terror. The supporting actors do a fine job yet, most of the young ladies were actually Penthouse Pets and were there for eye candy and irrelevant sex scenes. Depending on which film you are watching, the uncut or the R-version, some scenes are extremely graphic. I would usually always recommend the uncut version as opposed to the chopped one, but in this instance, the full length film is purely indulgent. Scenes of sex and gore were added to satisfy the producers (Penthouse) and the expected audience, not to add anything to the story. However, I am and will always be a fan of excess, so get the full version! The story is strong and keeps you interested. McDowell is charming throughout, which is quite the feat considering he murders family members, rapes and molests men and women, and sleeps with his sister. For fans of excess and sleaze, i highly recommend. Viewers who are purely interested in the reign of the notorious ruler might want to skip this one.

It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but "Caligula" surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof). The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar "Caligula" to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence.... If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever. You've been warned

I saw it when it came to America in 1980 and was almost banned in Boston. I had just turned 18 and was curious so I went to see it. YUCK!!!! This movie was truly sick. Castration, disembowelment, mutilation, beheadings, bestiality, necrophilia are all shoved in your face. I could care less if it's historically accurate or not...whatever it is, it's revolting! This theatre was packed when I went. During the movie many people walked out...in disgust I'm assuming. I had to leave after the two hour mark. There was a bad taste in my mouth (from the movie!), my stomach was in knots and I felt like I was going to throw up. That should tell you something. The only saving grace in this is that they got some respected actors who, despite the material, give good performances The late John Gielgud is in the first 10 minutes and then killed off (a wise choice), Peter O'Toole is killed off after 40 minutes (another wise choice). Poor Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren (who admits she did it just for the money) suffer through the entire film. They give two great performances...much better than the film deserves. A total piece of garbage. Avoid at all costs!

Okay, I tried to be fair. I looked at the cast which includes some very talented actors, the writer who is supposed to be a intellectual giant of sorts.. I saw this film in the movies, and it stunk. I saw the r-rated VHS version and it stunk, and now, I dumbly rented the "unrated" DVD and it was, I believe very much longer, but stunk just as much. I thought perhaps over a quarter century, I would have grown to appreciate this film more. I do not. Please understand that I have nothing against sex on screen, or nudity on screen or just about anything else on screen, as long as it all comes together and makes a good film. This film is not a good film. It is a real, first class stinkeroo. If I had to pick one film to show to a class (an adult class) as an example of how to make a terrible film, this would be it. I wonder, did John Gielgud or Peter O'Toole ever publish any comments on this film? It would be interesting, I think, to hear their comments. If you have a chance to rent this film, rent the R-rated version, because I think (at least if memory serves me) that it is mercifully, shorter. If you want to watch a low budget film along similar lines, that is not quite as bad as this one, (but still very bad indeed) you might try the less awful "Warrior Queen", which is also, mercifully, shorter. It has lots of nudity and death, but no Gielguds or O'Tooles to waste in its making. They claim that "Caligula" is historically accurate. Perhaps it's true to some extent, but if so, it's a story not worth watching.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit to seeing CALIGULA twice. The problems with the production are almost too numerous to mention. The script is sub-standard (it's easy to see why Vidal tried to disown it). The direction is worse. Most of the movie consists of long shots inter cut with close-ups interspersed with cross cuts of mostly un-erotic * (more prevalent obviously in the "uncut" version). The cinematography is especially sub par, giving the whole production a cheap washed-out (almost smokey) look that undermines some of the elaborate set designs. The movie should've looked a whole lot better. The overall concept of placing name actors in what would've easily been an X-rated movie (Guccione called it "paganography") wears thin after the first hour after Peter O'Toole and John Guilgud exit. Bob Guccione obviously lavished a lot of bucks on this but it all seems like a big waste. If you want a far better understanding of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century watch the mid-70's BBC production of I, CLAUDIUS instead... and if you want *, jeeze-Louise, look somewhere else.