Caligula (1979) User Reviews

The Ben-Hur of Porn: Gratuitous Sex, Violence, & Weirdness

[gftbiloxi · 4/10 · 23 April 2005]

Some describe CALIGULIA as "the" most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.

For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited "R" and original "Unrated" versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.

The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.

Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.

In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.

On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.

The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

"A viper for the Roman people and a Phaethon for the world"

[Galina_movie_fan · 6/10 · 13 May 2006]

Maybe it helps to be familiar with the history, Art, and literature of the Ancient Rome because "Caligula" is surprisingly truthful adaptation of the chapter about Caligula in "The Lives Of The Twelve Caesars by C. Suetonius Tranquillus, the Roman Historian. If you read the chapter dedicated to Nero, you'll be even more shocked because Nero was always fascinated by his uncle Caligula (he was a son of Caligula's sister Agrippina who later became a wife of Claudius who adopted Nero and made him the heir for the title and the power of Roman Emperor). Anyway, Nero made Caligula his role model and managed to surpass his uncle's' notorious fame.

The movie is notoriously famous for the plentiful scenes of real sex, including incest, necrophilia, rape, and orgies. The movie also includes quite nasty and gruesome scenes of torture, executions, murders, and humiliations but all of the events have been documented in the historical documents that still exist.

I don't think of the movie as a masterpiece or even a good movie for all of its 2.5 hours. It actually reminds the life of real Caligula. In his childhood and youth, he was adored by Roman people and especially by the army and he was a promising young man. When he grew up as a heir to the cruel and suspicious Tiberius, he had to hide his feelings and go through many humiliations in order to survive. Shrewd Tiberius said about his adopted grandson that "never humankind knew the better slave and the worse ruler than Caligula" and that he was rearing "a viper for the Roman people and a Phaethon for the world."

When the young man finally received an access to the absolute power it had absolutely corrupted him. It is also known that soon after becoming head of Roman Empire, Caligula suffered an illness and as the result of it, he became incredibly nasty, cruel, and suspicious man who had indulged in the worst acts of debauchery, cruelty, and sadism. The movie follows this pattern. I still think that it is an interesting movie with very good actors. Not every day you can see porn with Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, Sir John Gielgud, and of course, Mr. Clockwork Orange himself, Malcolm McDowell.

Fellini it ain't...

[ccmiller1492 · 4/10 · 24 June 2006]

"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.

must see

[scorpioscorpion · 21 May 2004]

Excuse the title of this review however the bottom line is, it has to be seen to be believed. The purely supreme cast is more than likely the only thing keeping the film from being well and truly buried in a basement. Historical revelations indicate that the content of this film probably does in fact (to a degree) reflect the lunacy rampant at the time and yes that means....meaningless executions, wild paranoia, incest and of course the gratuitous sex which could probably leave some soft porn movies looking very average (provided you get the right version). No its not a true classic but it dabbles with taboo, and dares go where other films draw the line. Its one i'll watch again and one you'd have to see merely to say you saw it. 6/10 scorpio

Cinematic excrement

[El Indio · 1/10 · 9 May 1999]

This has to rank as the most reprehensible, most repellent piece of excrement ever assembled on film. What was intended as a look into the life of the most debauched of Roman Emperors comes off as endless and pointless parade of violence and graphic sexual content. I have no problem with sex or violence in any film, provided it's motivated by the narrative and character development. When it's dredged on the screen just because the producers had the money to do it. When this is the case, then I'm left with a couple of basic thoughts: if this is to be about Caligula and I leave this film with no better insight into his nature as a ruler or the atmosphere he functioned in, then it doesn't function as drama. Secondly, if I were to sit the multitude of graphic sex scenes only to be repelled and mystified by their presence in the film, then it barely functions as good porn.

In short, CALIGULA has provided me with two and one-half hours of cinema (if you wish to call it that) that I would never wish on anyone.

Beyond Taste and Decency, Beyond Even Entertainment Value

[MermanSam · 1/10 · 27 June 2005]

I saw this film at the tender age of 18 with a group of friends. Its reputation had preceded it, and though all my friends were also of legal age, I alone had the courage to enter the video store and actually rent it. We gathered at a house where the parents had left town for the weekend. Though we sat in close proximity to each other, we did not speak or otherwise acknowledge each other's presence. As it turned out, the film both merited and did not merit the anticipatory shame we felt. It did not disappoint in terms of sheer gratuitous content, but it disappointed in every other way.

Caligula attempts to transcend genres by combining a historical epic with a brazen porn flick. It fails miserably in its ambition, subjecting the audience to the worst of both worlds. The film's obvious selling point is its pornographic aspect, and it does indeed provide far more than its share of real, graphic sex. But in setting this sex in the context of Caligula's depraved reign, it dignifies the act even less than the average adult movie. Sex without context might at least be physically pleasurable for the consenting adults involved, but pleasure and perhaps even consent are largely absent from the world of Caligula. In it, sex at best serves as an idle pastime and at worst as an instrument of sadistic domination. In the present day, it is somewhat common to hear words like "sin" and "depravity" used facetiously to describe acts which are enjoyable yet considered taboo according to certain moral or religious perspectives. Caligula takes the viewer beyond the facetiousness by depicting true depravity and demonstrating that no joy or pleasure comes from it.

The historical portions not only fail to meaningfully contextualize the sex, they fail to entertain, enlighten, intrigue, or interest the viewer in any way. They only provide lengthy stretches of unremitting tedium. Rarely has a film proved so boring. The sex, after the initial shock and astonishment fades, only contributes to the overall monotony of the picture.

Rarely do discussions of this film involve its violence. While many films more violent than Caligula have been made, few can rival it in terms of the shock value of its violence. Apparenly, unrelenting barbarity as well as hyper-depraved sexuality characterized Caligula's emperorship. The violence is even less for the faint of heart than the sex.

A review like this will likely generate as much curiosity as it quells. I understand why someone would want to see this film; after all, I myself succumbed to the same curiosity. I simply hope that my review, by plainly describing its lack of redeeming value, will at least give potential viewers the knowledge to make an informed decision about whether to see it or not. My high school criminal justice teacher described police work as "hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror." This statement perfectly describes Caligula. You have been warned.

unimaginably awful

[malamaryes · 1/10 · 29 June 2006]

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

Beyond the controversy lies a good film

[fromwithin · 7/10 · 6 February 2000]

This film, as with all, has good points and bad points.

In general, I feel that the good ones far outweigh the bad.

The film simply gives the story of the rise and death of Emperor Caligula in a very straight-forward manner. Indeed, it can be seen as shocking, but I think that this is a side-effect of it's desire to be realistic, rather than a deliberate act on the part of the film-makers.

The cinematography and camera work is awful. The huge sets seem at times almost claustrophobic which is an absolute crime considering the magnificence of them. There is also too much emphasis on Caligula himself, to the detriment of revealing some important traits in other characters, making them seem somewhat shallow at times.

The sex scenes are very well placed within the context of the film. I thought that only two scenes stood out as being unnecessarily overt, but for the most part, the explicitness is on the fringe of the focus of each scene, while also playing a major part in the atmosphere.

Never once did I feel that any dialogue was out of place, nor did the acting strike me as being bad.

By far the biggest problem with this film is the fact that the sexual content is widely advertised and therefore anticipated before viewing. This may cause people to focus dominantly on those scenes without really looking at the film as a whole. For me, it enhanced the film. Not in a particularly titillating way, but in the fact that there was no compromise during scenes of sexual acts. Roman orgies are regarded to have been extremely opulent and promiscuous - I found it refreshing to see one as it may have actually been rather than lots of fully-clothed laughing fat men pouring red wine over their faces and eating grapes while draped with female automatons.

In summary, Caligula definitely has it's place in film history due to it's controversy, but if you look beyond that controversy, you should find a rather good film which neatly tells the story of how power can turn someone into a madman.

Wretched excess

[jbacks3 · 1/10 · 3 December 2004]

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 porn (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 porn, jeeze-Louise, look somewhere else.

unbelievably indulgent, however beautiful and captivating

[teamgomez99 · 7/10 · 10 November 2010]

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.

Turned it on but got turned off !

[crendine · 1/10 · 9 April 2015]

I viewed the full-length, uncut version of this film and it struck me as merely an attempt to make a porno version of the Ten Commandments with a bit of Night of the Living Dead thrown in. Guccione's idea seems to have been to portray the perverse and sick side of the Roman era and at the same time, to destroy the Hollywood perception of Biblical movies (given the cast of some well-established actors and actresses). The result was an absolutely disgusting film whose only merit was in its shock value. As many of my fellow IMDb reviewers have pointed out, there is actually a scene early in the film where a group of individuals are buried up to their necks in the ground and are decapitated by a lawn-mower type machine wielding a very large blade. And the scene is very graphic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think engines existed in this era ! As for the remainder, the script is just plain awful and speaking quite frankly, the "adult" scenes (if we can refer to them that way) are not very stimulating or exciting at all. Also, there are many scenes of orgies, bestiality, incest, and just about any other perversion you can think of. To me, this movie was an expensive attempt to create a pornographic film set to the backdrop of Ancient Rome and throwing in extreme violence and established actors just to lend it some credibility. I'm sure there are many historical errors here as well but in short, this is just an awful attempt at cinema. At a length of a little over 2 and 1/2 hours, it really becomes boring and pointless. Also, if we check the history books, this movie isn't even close to the facts. For one, the emperor's name was not even Caligula. That was a nickname given to him by the Roman soldiers when he was a little boy. It literally means "little boots". He would parade around in front of the soldiers in a soldiers uniform that his mother made for him, which included a tiny set of army boots. And, his reign as emperor only lasted 4 years and was, by far, more violent than sexually perverse. He wound up being assassinated by 2 soldiers whom he insulted. So, this movie technically fails on 2 fronts. Terrible.

A misunderstood classic.

[bighelsinki · 10/10 · 8 March 2000]

CALIGULA is a terribly misunderstood film. I believe too many people think of it as a cheap porno, and bash it due to that. "All porn is bad," right?

CALIGULA was a daring film experiment incorporating big-name, established talent, and the raw energy of under ground film techniques. What results is nothing short of a fascinating product.

All of the acting is very good. Malcolm McDowell plays psychotic villains so well, one can't help but think he's like that in real life. His portrayal of Gaius Caligula just drips with maniacal megalomania. The little-known Teresa Ann Savoy is convincing as Drusilla, Caligula's sister. And Peter O'Toole's Tiberius Caesar, whose diseased face is rotting away, is truly an oddity to behold...put he pulls it off well. The acting in general is all very good.

The use of music is also to be noted. There are original, evocative pieces written for the film by Paul Clemente, no doubt a talented composer.

While some of the photography is stilted in this film, for the most part it's gorgeous. A lot of people say the colors are "dark" and "washed out", but I think that lends to the grittiness of the film.

Danilo Donati's sets are big and well designed, it kind of shocks you to see someone getting a blow job in them. They look like they belong in a run-of-the-mill Hollywood produced film. Aren't all pornos supposed to be filmed in the director's back yard?

And that right there is the point of the film. To shock you; you can't believe you're seeing what you're seeing. Beyond the violence and the sex is a well written, acted, and photographed film.

I have spoken!

A tasteless and overblown farrago despite the presence of great actor as Gielgud, O'Toole, McDowell, and Helen Mirren

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 6 September 2008]

The film builds around one of the most notoriously decadent of the Roman emperors, Caligula… The movie covers his rise to power, his four-year rule, and his bloody assassination… His vile deeds include crashing a wedding and sexually abusing the bride and groom, playing erotic fantasies with his sister (who is also his lover) and turning the Imperial Palace into an exclusive brothel…

For a really big-money film, the treatment of the sexual scenes is daringly explicit, but somehow the obsession with it makes the film uneven… It blends very good actors, O'Toole and McDowell, with some simple-minded Penthouse models… The overall effect is disappointing...

Guccione does deserve a hand for the exquisite sets, costumes, production values, and very fine cinematography

Real sex, fake story

[ebrahim-mehri · 1/10 · 4 December 2013]

It's better to read Caligula's biography in Wikipedia. He wasn't evil in his first years of reign. He was wise and people loved him. But after some time he became insane and he did some unrighteous deeds. But this movie is too exaggerative. Excessive insist on sex (which most of them were not based on truth) harmed the drama and lowered it to a B-movie, in spite of famous actors. For me, it was a waste of time. I don't recommend it to anyone. But be careful! The sex scenes are really done and explicitly shown. Porn offenders must not watch this. Instead they can watch the R-rated 90-min version and you miss nothing, because sexual scenes have nothing to do with the main plot.

Ridiculously underrated. Had Pasolini made this same exact movie, it would have been showered with praise.

[fedor8 · 1 February 2007]

Let's not kid ourselves here, all ye art students, film-school nerds, and other self-loathing "cinema l'arte" snobs: had this exact same movie been released under the banner "directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini" you would have loved it - sorry: CLAIMED to have loved it - and praised it to high heaven, espousing its virtues in long essays, justifying its extreme sex and violence through some b.s. semantic pseudo-intellectual movie-critic-jargon mumbo-jumbo.

Go on, admit it. No-one will laugh. We promise.

This movie has been unanimously dismissed as exploitative trash and of no cinematic value by "notable" movie critics.

After having seen the full two-and-a-half hour version: a) I can certainly see why THEY would choose to view it that way b) I totally disagree The fact that "Caligula" was financed by Penthouse (gasp!) and directed by Tinto Brass (oh no!) is what this is all about.

An excellent cast includes McDowell (an ideal choice for Caligula - or any devious lunatic, for that matter) and Mirren (at the height of her enormous sex-appeal). There is terrific music from Khachaturian, an interesting story, some suspense, etc. A strong stomach is needed to watch this gore-fest, though.

A corny, historically inaccurate, fairy-tale-like piece of crap like "Gandhi" gets world-wide recognition, while a brutally realistic film about another historical figure gets the finger. Go figure.

The Worst Film Ever Made

[talkinhorse · 1/10 · 15 January 2007]

Let me clarify that. This is the worst film ever made that isn't in the category of being so bad it's good. It falls into the class of execrable films that you don't want to see. Trust me on this, or you'll be very sorry later.

I saw "Caligula" in its theatrical release in 1979. Coming off the high of the superb BBC mini-series, "I, Claudius", I thought "Caligula" might be in the same spirit. What a horrific mistake! "Caligula" was entirely lacking in dramatic merit. There's no dramatic progress, there's no lesson, there are no surprises, there's nothing except base depravity in scene after scene after scene. And the scenes that aren't disgusting are boring. The titular Caligula is a reptile at the beginning, and he's the identical reptile at the end. He lives, he stinks, he dies. The end.

I'll close by noting that, as far as I know, this is the only film the erudite Roger Ebert summed up by invoking the word "sh**". You can find his review by searching at his website, RogerEbert dot com.

It Stunk Then, It Stinks Now

[MiserblOF · 1/10 · 5 October 2006]

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.

Despite pretensions to being some kind of accurate historical epic, this is basically a 2.5 hour porno, with lots of close-up violence.

[barnabyrudge · 1/10 · 27 July 2004]

It's a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. But when you see a noble actor like Sir John Gielgud surrounded by naked, copulating couples that's just what you'll want to do. Add to that Peter O'Toole as syphilis-ridden emperor Tiberius and Malcolm McDowell sticking his finger up a male victim's anus, and you begin to appreciate that Caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick/outrageous films.

The film charts the life of notorious Roman emperor Caligula (McDowell), a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters, decapitations, betrayals, murders, incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes.

Although Caligula was totally mad in real life, and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not, the film is still inexcusable filth. The sex in the film isn't used as one aspect in a multi-layered story - the sex IS the story. After a while, all the nudity, hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. The performances are totally undisciplined, particularly McDowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild-eyed posturing. O'Toole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he's in it purely for the money?!). Rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director's consent during post production, but in truth there isn't a single minute in Caligula that is dignified or well-made. It is doubtful that this amount of time, talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again, so in that sense Caligula is a one-of-a-kind experience... on the other hand, it's so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is "one-of-a-kind" is a blessing in disguise.

It's shocking, graphic, violent, but worth a look.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 27 February 2021]

The rise and fall of one of the most famous, and infamous Caesars of all, Caligula.

I had only ever seen the edited version, recently I was made to watch the whole, uncut version, it was so long, it seemed to be on for almost three hours.

If I'm honest, the uncut version seemed to make more sense, it flowed a lot better. The original better shows the level of depravity of the man, and the behaviour he condoned and encouraged.

I can't say it's a great film, but it's definitely worth watching, at times it's just too gratuitous, and too self indulgent. It's worth watching to get a version of Caligula, I was left feeling a little confused, as to whether it's an accurate form of the man, or just the director's desire to make a porn film.

McDowell is excellent, he's wild eyed, manic, and clearly very comfortable playing such a part, I think some of the acting elsewhere is very dodgy.

That scene with the bride and groom on their wedding night is overly grim, it's too much.

Amazing sets, and some of the production values are very decadent.

It doesn't surprise me that this was a massive flop, I'm not sure audiences were ready for it.

It's interesting, it held my attention, would I watch it again soon? Not on your Nelly!

Worth seeing, 7/10.

Excrement of a film and a waste of celluloid

[padiyark · 1/10 · 19 January 2005]

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 porn 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.

My first X-rated film....

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 8 January 2002]

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!

Legendary pandemonium

[tonosov-51238 · 6/10 · 26 March 2023]

The director screws over the writer, the producer screws over the director, and then the studio just turns it all into porno film.

Such is the succinct history of this six-year-long movie production. What started as a contemplative biopic on one of the most controversial Emperors of the Roman Empire and the corruption of absolute power got rewritten to hell and back into satire with erotic elements only to eventually transform into a 2-hour phantasmagoria with live births (according to some sources) and dicks galore.

It is peculiar to see that the plot actually tries to stick with very one-sided Caligula titbits, but it's all so hyperbolized that it comes off like 2000-year-old anti-Julio-Claudian dynasty propaganda, painstakingly designed to have so little nuance in its portrayal of Caligula (and pretty much anyone of note in that time period, for that matter) that it turns the plot into a farce.

A very engaging mockery of history. I doubt anyone is going to be aroused by the multitude of orgies depicted on the screen. But the sadistic showmanship of these orgies and executions is a sight to behold. The head-cutting wall is worth a watch by itself.

Rome .....was never like this

[werefox08 · 1/10 · 29 June 2012]

Caligula is one of those movies that has huge impressive sets, huge impressive male sex organs and huge impressive mammary glands. Thats all. Malcolm McDowell as Caligula shows his one dimensional acting ability....(he is awful). The script is so weak ...it could have been written by a 6 year old. There is no doubt that the people behind this crap ..thought that word of mouth about the explicit sexual content would make this a money maker. It really is a non movie. A huge mess, and at no stage is it worth a look. There is absolutely no sense of any reality in this. It is just self indulgent rubbish. A case of where...the money men... mis-judged the public.

A masterpiece of costume and actuality

[novaeon · 19 November 1999]

I watched this movie the first time the night-before last.. and watched it again last night and again tonight.

This movie is far from pornography... only a few scenes are hardcore, and only a couple of these are even barely erotic. It does not exactly function as an historical epic, either.

The film quality and lighting would make it appear to date from the 1960s.

The script is mediocre. More drama could be added, however we do have to bear in mind that the Romans followed the school of Stoicism.

The acting (including Malcolm McDowell's) is nothing outstanding, with the exception of Peter O'Toole's Tiberius Caesar. He displays tragedy and lunacy, evoking reactions of disgust, sympathy, pity, and compassion. I found myself much more intrigued by his character and wishing the movie was about his decline from wisdom to near-madness, rather than Caligula. It also caused me to desire to learn more and research the actual life of Tiberius.

The film neither condemns, nor condones. That is probably how it should be.

Where this film succeeds monumentally is the costuming and unabridged realism. This is the first film I've seen to have a character wearing a toga like the one Caligula's sister (a design many Roman women actually wore) wears in the opening scene. The depiction of slaves and the acts of love and brutality are well-done. It is not erotic, it is not horrifying. With the hardcore scenes excised (the version i saw was the complete version), I believe this movie should be shown in every high school World History class. For centuries, Western culture has censored and toned-down representations of its Pagan past. The filmmakers must be applauded for attempting to make an honest epic.

I've become very hard to please when it comes to movies. The last movie I actually liked to a strong degree was Amadeus, which I saw two years ago. Despite its flaws, with its sheer amount of action and atmosphere, I believe this movie deserves a 10.