Hitchcoc I just feel I need to hone in on a movie that, for me, has no redeeming value. It is based on a character from history whose life evolved around the cruelest of actions. I know that for some, the squeamish don't deserve a say in anything. I am not squeamish, but when one sacrifices plot and theme for utter violence, it's hard to watch. I have gotten used to violence since the first Sam Peckinpaugh films where could see graphic dismemberment or worse. In this, it's like a trip to a slaughterhouse. I don't think we should shrink from portraying scenes when they are necessary. This one did nothing for me. Its glossiness and high tech efforts simply exacerbated its lack of a message.

Eric Stevenson I am amazed that I have been able to find this movie at all because it's probably the only pornographic film I'll ever watch. I have no idea how this made it to mainstream theaters. I normally never watch porn at all, but I was willing to make an exception for this movie because it was the only one that I could really find that was in standard movie guides. I remember reading how much Roger Ebert despised this film and then hearing that it was Brad Jones' (Cinema Snob) favorite movie. It's so ridiculous because all he did in his review was talk about how horrible it was.This movie may have at least been tolerable if not for the fact that it goes on forever. It might be the longest porn movie ever made. You could have trimmed all the nudity out to make this an hour and a half. The film becomes too predictable, being nothing but sex scenes over and over. The acting and dubbing is quite poor too. As far as I know, this is in fact a historically accurate film. I don't know quite that much about the real life Caligula. It doesn't matter, because it's awful any way. I consider myself open to new ideas, which is why I saw this. I will now never watch a feature length porn movie the rest of my life! At least I gave it a chance. *

deideiblueeyez I watched the 160 minute version, which may have been a mistake on my part (or not?) because it had all of the pornography that wasn't in the original script added to it. If the film had had more direction, if it truly had buckled down and focused on Caligula and simply had the sex as an *element* of the film and not an overall theme --though that may have been difficult as the Romans were more liberal than many at the time, even more so than the neighboring Greeks when it came to sex in some aspects--and while that may paint the background, I do not think it was really necessary to be a part of nearly every single scene. Naked slaves and worker bees I can understand, and of course Caligula's reign did have a very promiscuous color to it, but there were, in my opinion, much more pressing matters that the film only touched upon that could have served as more entertaining. Him naming his horse as senator was obviously a joke and with Malcolm McDowell's wonderful acting you are left guessing how many of his actions are due to mental instability and how many of them are as a means to belittle the system that he rules over.Don't take this the wrong way, readers, but I never thought I would have ever rooted for a brother-sister couple like I did with McDowell's Caligula and Savoy's Drusilla. Their chemistry was beautiful and lovely, their sibling bond plunged into erotic and romantic waters which never ebbed up until the very end. Again, it is very, very weird to me that I *felt* for them during their time on screen and wished them to be happily married (shivers) but somehow McDowell always seems to make the most taboo into a "Eh, why not? It can't hurt". I recommend you watch a fairly well-edited version instead of the full 160 minute slog. Too much porn ruined the story telling. Goddamn Guccione. There's no way a film like this could ever be made again with the same Shakespearean seriousness, stifling awkwardness, and on- screen lasciviousness that for the latter may be a good thing in the end.

F. R. Tiberius When a glorified pimp steals control of a masterpiece, and when the moral compasses of all involves withers away, then worlds of cinemas collapse. Logical, no? Once, several years before Star Wars, Gore Vidal wrote a screenplay about possibly the most depraved Roman emperor of Ancient times. It's probably safe to say that his mistake was in asking a porn magazine to fund this movie's production. Throw in the involvement of Tinto Brass and Bob Guccione and you have Caligula, one of the most notorious failures of 70s cinema. While it's not quite as vicious as Cannibal Holocaust, it's still excessively exploitative; while Holocaust used real killings, Caligula used real sex - so as to try to boost sales of Penthouse magazine, apparently. So what grabbed my attention for this film so strongly, especially when I initially thought it'd give me nightmares? I mean it's not like it's entirely historically accurate, is it? Well... it's got Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren, among others. And the musical score is recognisable, at least among classical music aficionados.Well, I took one for the team when I went to pick up a copy of the Imperial Edition DVD set. This included the uncut release... which SHOULD warrant an R18 where I live but somehow doesn't... the 1999 "Rated Version", misrepresented as the "Theatrical Version"... and there's the one I chanced at, the Alternative "Pre-Release" Edition, a new edit created from an earlier cut which re-arranges a few scenes back into their original context, and most of the explicit sexual inserts added by Guccione are removed, filled in by a handful of 16mm behind-the-scenes footage. So, fair enough, it's not so much of a sex film as it was before. But not even that could save Caligula from being one of the most miserable films I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing.From start to finish this turkey blows (in more ways than one!), and it's not hard to see why: you have three conflicting artistic differences duking it out, and while sometimes it works, it can't really be excused that sometimes you can forget you're watching a film with explicit sex, and then a helping of genitalia brings you back to earth with an unpleasant thump. Not to mention the violence, as well - in one early scene, a soldier has several gallons of wine poured down his gullet, and Tiberius personally pokes a hole in him... just to prove to us that neither the Ancient Romans nor the Modern Writers have limits when it comes to pointless and senseless violence. Still... I guess it's fair game if, historically, Tiberius ordered to have the scales of a fish rub off a victim's face...And as for the explicit porn - how did this get into public cinemas again? It's clear proof that Bob was a sex tycoon who sneaked back onto the set to film a hardcore porno movie for which - though as I recall, most of the acts are legal - the authorities could shut down the set and sentence everyone to jail. It almost happened anyway - in several theatres the movie was shut down and seized by police! I'm just saying that this is the sort of thing that doesn't bear watching if you aren't in the mood. I'm not going to say anything about them, for obvious reasons. Even if I did, perhaps my arguments would be invalid - except for the fact that they replaced some of the more important scenes.This excessive sex and violence aside, the point is this: Caligula in general is a major dud - a long, drawn-out (seriously it drags on well over two hours!!) piece of work of which not one bit is historically accurate, nor assembled in a historically accurate order. If Bob was holding out for artistic freedom, then he'd failed in that respect because really, even ART has standards! Of course, it's not all bad news... Malcolm, Helen, Peter, John and co. did a fairly good job in their acting, and the music, like I said, is a splendid compilation to listen to. The sets aren't bad either, even if they do represent a nightmarish version of Ancient Rome. Also on the Imperial Edition DVD, there are a few deleted scenes which SHOULD have stayed in the film, as they surely would make it less of a disgrace than it is now. A complete and detailed history of the production of the film is also being written by James Ellis Chaffin and Ranjit Sandhu, with research from Thomas Ryerson, called 200 Degrees of Failure: The Unmaking of Caligula, slated for a release sometime this year, or possibly the next. You can find a lot of their research at their site (caligula.ws). I'm sure that the story behind how Gore Vidal's work fell apart would be a much interesting read, and I'm looking forward to it.