CALIGULA

1979 **1/2 156 mins.

This film is not as terrible as I thought it was going to be. Actually, it is a very interesting and intriguing film about the Roman emperor Caius Caligula (played by Malcolm McDowell). This film truly makes one wonder if things such as depicted in this film actually happened in ancient times. If so, why do we glorify Ancient Rome so much all the time? This film is a very important film in history because it is the first film to really show what Ancient Rome was really like, behind all of the glory and majesty that we people today place upon it.

The reasons, though, that this film gets two and a half stars is that the quality of the filmmaking is absolutely horrendus. Not a single performance in this film is worthy of any sort of recognition. The closest thing to a half-way decent performance is Peter O'Toole's performance as Tiberius. Malcolm McDowell prances around through the whole film, so it's hard to tell if he's playing Caligula as a homosexual or not. Teresa Ann Savoy, although undeniably beautiful beyond all telling, plays the role of Drusilla as though she were an eight-year-old girl in her school play.

The cinematography of this film is terrible. A lot of shots look very haphazard in the way they were set up. Many of them would have been greatly improved if it was obvious what the shot wanted us to look at. Most of the shots were off-center and not quite showing some people that we needed to see. The set design, although wonderfully done, was not displayed very well in the film. The sets were beautifully crafted, but we are not allowed to really enjoy them.

Now, my fellow readers, the point you've all been waiting for. The explicit sexual content of the film.

I do feel that the explicit nature of the film is integral. However, do we really need to see men standing around the same bowl masturbating? Do we really need to see a man ejaculate into a woman's mouth? Do we really need to see the head of a baby as it is coming out of a woman's vagina? Do we really need to see women sticking their fingers inside of themselves and each other? This film does and shows just about everything except actually taking the camera up inside of a woman. I wouldn't want to give anyone any ideas, though!!!

To get back on a positive note, though, I must say that I was completely astounded by Paul Clemente's wonderful musical score to the film. The music was absolutely amazing, and even as I write this, I'm hearing the music playing in my head.

You may love this film, you may hate this film. Either way, there is no denying the power, controversy, and importance of this film. Caligula is a film that is not easily watched and tolerated, but it sure is interesting.

CALIGULA
1981 R-RATED VERSION
1979/1981 ***1/2 105 mins.

It is obvious by just looking at the lenghts of the two versions of this film that the R-rated version is considerably changed. This version is 51 minutes shorter than the 1999 unrated DVD version. The result is a much more enjoyable and tolerable motion picture experience.

I must admit that I have actually come to enjoy this film. This version, I should say. This version is much closer to presenting a story. This version cuts out all of the useless hardcore footage instilled by Bob Guccione. Therefore, this film is much easier to sit through, both in length and content. This film is constructed more like: scene, scene, scene, scene, scene. Whereas the original is constructed like: scene, scene, ten minutes of sex, scene, scene, ten minute long orgy, scene, lesbian sex scene, scene, scene, ten minute long brothel, scene. We actually are able to see the story this film tries to hard to tell.

This R-rated version of Caligula is a great improvement on the two and a half hours long porno that was originally released.
Rated R for strong sexual content, violence, and nudity.

CALIGULA
1999 R-RATED VERSION

1979/1999 *** 102 mins.

Don't be mistaken, the DVD R-rated version is not the same R-rated version as the 1981 R-rated version reviewed above. This is, simply, a hacked to pieces version of the 1999 unrated DVD version. It's still much more tolerable and easy to watch, but try to find the 1981 R-rated version, if possible. Of course, the 1999 unrated DVD is different from the unrated version available on VHS from the early '80s. Oh, well.

I honestly wish I could give this film more stars than I have. However, that is just not possible. The poor filmmaking techniques are still there. Regardless of what both DVD covers say, this certainly does not look like it's "Digitally Remastered & Fully Restored". Oh, well.
Rated R for strong sexual content, violence, and nudity.

• Original theatrical aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Debuted in Italy on August 14, 1979
• Many different cuts of this film exist. The three reviewed above are the only three that I have seen. For more information on the alternate versions, check out The Internet Movie Database.
• It has been romoured that this film was originally cut at three and a half hours in length, and that version was shown at the premiere.