"I Am a God!" Caligula Review 2004
Written: Nov 06 '04
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: The performances, the sets, the direction, the absolute guts it took to make it.
Cons: Bob Guccione.
The Bottom Line: It's a misunderstood classic, one of my favorite movies of all time, and certainly the most realistic Pagan Rome interpretation ever.
|
|
|
| caligula79's Full Review: Caligula |
Here's my attempt at reviewing the movie that my epinions name comes from. Enjoy!
The mind is a funny thing. Geniuses have been unable to figure it out, so that definitely means that I'm not going to, but I can offer my own little theory, which I consider to be factual, but I'm not a genius. The mind is made up into two parts. There's the left side of the brain, and the right side. It splits right down in the middle. The left side of the brain is the side which triggers your interest in the mainstream, it makes you like movies such as "Spiderman," "Shrek," or "Pirates of the Carribean." All fine films, but most definitely mainstream. The right side of the brain (or maybe the left, I could have them mixed up) is the side that gives you a keen interest in the dark, the seedy, the B, the grindhouse, the underappreciated side of cinema, with such great titles as "Cannibal Holocaust," "Vice Squad," "The Beyond," or "House on the Edge of the Park" (some favorites of mine). Some people pay attention to only the right side, some pay attention to the left, and if you're like me, then you go for both sides. But there is one movie that sits right there in the middle of the brain, like it's going to cause a fatal seizure any moment due to its awkward position. That movie is Tinto Brass' "Caligula." Vile, sexual, disgusting, perverted, ultra violent, hardcore, indeed. But...it's lush, lavish, well directed, well produced, looks great, big budgeted, and stars Malcolm McDowell, Sir John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole, and Helen Mirren. That makes "Caligula" the universal movie, certainly one of the greatest pieces of cinema I have ever laid eyes on in my entire movie watching life (22 going on 23 years).
I don't think that anyone on this earth appreciates this movie as much as I do. Upon release, the movie was trashed by critics and audiences alike. Audiences were furious that had to pay $7.50 to see this masterpiece, while critics were upset they had to pay ANYTHING to see the movie. I would have sold my house to see this film in the theater, but that's me. Ebert called it one of the worst films ever made, and even walked out of his screening after 2 hours. Siskel didn't like it either. In every movie book you find, this film will no doubt get zero stars (even in the Montgomery Wards catelogue!!) My question is "why?" Why torture this unfounded classic even more? If I had to take some random guess that I'll pull from the right side of my brain, it would be that some people could be under the impression that this film is supposed to be erotic.
Ebert calls it "bad porn." Let me tell you something. Roman history is the only form of history that even remotely interests me. This film is the most realistic interpretation of the Pagan Rome era that I have ever seen on film. With that said, this movie is in no way supposed to be sexy and it not supposed to turn you on. If you feel like having sex after watching "Caligula," than hail caesar to you. I just don't understand how someone could honestly think that this movie is supposed to be sexy. Well, maybe if you're a necrofile, a coprophiliac, or Caligula reincarnated, than maybe, but that theory could make me post the same questions about "Nekromantik" and NO ONE finds that sexy!
Everything you've always heard about Pagan Rome is here (graphically!) in this film. The orgies which involve whips and vomit and dwarves and poles and spikes and the list goes on and on and on. The brutal killings are shown, such as Tiberius ordering a guard's urinary track closed, to which wine is forced down his mouth, and his stomach is cut open, which by the way was Tiberius' favorite method of killing people. The first half hour of this film is really the most graphic footage in the film, violently and sexually. A lot of those scenes deal with Caligula's trip to the island of Capri shortly before Emperor Tiberius' death. Capri was basically an imperial freak show, with a bit of sex thrown in there. Freaks were seen with asses on their stomachs and being (do I have to spell it out?), which continued all day long with guards standing buy, not to mention well put together contraptions like the wheel with feathers attached.
All of this is shown in the film, by the way. Everytime I watch this movie, I notice something new in that scene, like just the other day I spotted a woman standing in the background who has a penis, which sticks out of her vagina. Both of them look functional. Are the people who made "Caligula" sick? Maybe, but I applaud them for the detail and the guts to show this in a big budget Roman epic. O'Toole has gone on to say that he didn't know all of that hardcore activity was going on this the film. That's the textbook definition of b and s. It is clearly going on this the background of footage he is in. Yes, hardcore material was hastily added later by the order and direction of producer Bob Guccione, but not ALL the hardcore material. Just the ones that didn't make any sense.
But this is not just a story about sex and violence during Pagan Rome. It's a story about power, greed, trechery, and the madness that all of those thing can have on a mind too fragile to contain them. It is said that Caligula possibly could have been epileptic. Well, I'm epileptic, and could I handle the control over every life in the world? Hell no. After the murder of Emperor Tiberius at the hands of Macro, the leader of the Imperial Guards, Caligula is soon put into power, and faster than you can say "I am a god!" he is either vanquishing or putting to death those who are seen as a possible threat to his rule, including Macro. Macro, by the way, dies at the hands of a rather large machine that plows its way across a field of people buried up to their heads and chops them off. That machine did not exist, but I appreciate the idea.
In a movie with such depravity, it's hard to believe that the love story involving Caligula and his sister Drusilla is actually seen as "normal." The opening scenes of the movie show them frolicking in the woods, and you're thinking "ew, incest," but after the freak shows and the deaths involving penis' and vaginas, you're thinking "eh, incest." The death scene involving Drusilla is truly the most powerful moment in the film, thanks largely to the music being cued up in the right places, and McDowell's brilliant performance in the scene, where he mainly just uses facial expressions. You may have heard that the scene involves necromance. Yes, he begins to lick her body, but he does not get on top of her and give her the imperial sceptor. While watching it, it is clear that he is trying to bring her back to life, and is not trying to get off. He is so desperate and believable in this scene, that while watching it, I thought "well, I suppose Caligula, as represented in this film and in this situation, would do something like that." I wonder what the people who complain about this would have thought of the scene in "I, Claudius" where Caligula kills Drusilla by removing a fetus and eating it.
After the loss of Drusilla, we are left with a man who truly has nothing else to live for. He orders some penis' to be cut off, more torture, a battle of the reeds, and imperial brothel to help with the budget, and there is also his wife, a former (?) prostitute named Caesonia (Helen Mirren, who is brilliant here). This marriage was set up earlier in the film, only because it was clearly obvious that Caligula could not marry his sister. Once we get more into the two parts, they are incredibly fleshed out, to what happens by the end is not entirely a mutual love, but more like a mutual respect for one another in that they both know their places in the society, but that both of them can not handle that much pressure. They clearly end up liking each other, maybe because she loves his power, or that he sees her as the embodiment of his sister, but it just makes the final scene in the film all the more shocking, and all the more logical that Caesonia would react the way she does.
Much could be said about how incredibly well acted these parts are. Malcolm McDowell gives one of the best performances of his career, showing the evil and detestable side of this person, but also giving us a clear arc for the character, where we see someone in the beginning who is happy in his life with his sister, but does indeed thirst for power as the years go on. He hides in the shadow of his war hero father, and lives in fear of his uncle, the emperor Tiberius. Once he gets that power, he doesn't know what to do with it, and it drives him mad. Honestly, a more realistic interpretation of Caligula is seen by John Hurt in "I, Claudius," but McDowell and indeed this script's version makes very very well for a 156 minute film. Teresa Ann Savoy is very believable as Drusilla, who is witness to a lot of Caligula's atrocities, but makes us think that this character really wants to stay and support the Emperor, given that one of the deaths imparticular was her idea. O'Toole is clearly drunk in his scenes (he even looks at the camera at one point), but you know what...it's entertaining as hell. It really does fit this character quite nicely, and he is so over the top and so loud and hateful that you think "damn, this bastard is evil." That is the correct response while watching Tiberius, so kudos for O'Toole and his bottle.
Did I mention that I love this film? Well, I do. I love, love, love this movie. I love almost everything about it. I love its performances, I love its grainy dungeon-esque look, I love the props (two words: Imperial Brothel), the extras (from naked women carrying water, to random people urinating), the costumes (or lack there of), the make-up (freaks!), and I adore the music (I got the soundtrack on double vinyl, it comes with a disco version of the theme). The Guccione footage, though...could have done without. Not all of it, just some of it. Some of his added footage is so quick, that it's hard to decifer who shot it. It's the ones that go on for too long that I have a problem with, which I have since gotten over. There's a beautifully well lit scene in the rain, where Caligula has a threesome with his wife and sister, and for no reason whatsoever, it cuts to a 5 minute lesbian scene. I appreciate it, sure, but it's not needed.
Tinto Brass knew what he was going for when he directed this film. He knew the sight of Caligula in bed with a horse would lead to some saying "oh my god, bestiality!" (Even though he is only in bed with it, and it does not show him screwing it. There is, however, a scene with a woman and a snake). I don't blame Brass for wanting his name off the movie, because if someone added things like Guccione did to my movie, I'd...well, I wouldn't take my name off, but I'd be plenty mad! I also don't blame Gore Vidal for not wanting his writing credit taken off, after Gucionne got rid of the homosexual aspect of the main character, one of the details this movie leaves out (aside from one scene brief scene where he kisses Macro). I'm not going to complain in great detail about that, since there is a lot that this movie leaves in as far as detail goes, but in a way Gucionne is this film's worst enemy. I take the movie as it is, though. It still works in my eyes, no matter how much trouble it was to make it. Regardless of Guccione's extra footage, and people taking their names off the credits, it is still, as I said earlier, the most realistic Pagan Rome film ever made, and it is entertaining as hell, and damn it looks good! There is so much to absolutely love and cherish about this movie, that it completely overshadows the negatives. Just a minor scene like the pregnant Caesonia dancing to please the psychotic emperor completely makes up for the lesbian scene.
If you wants to see Brass' version, it exists on an R2 DVD entitled "Io Caligola" and is worth seeking out. Events are placed in the right order, and best of all, it has the director's approval. There is also, of course, the absolutely laughable R-rated version. I don't know why this version exists, and I don't want to know. When you see it before the uncut version, it is an incoherent piece of garbage, but if you see it after, it is hysterical. One minute Caligula and Tiberius are on the top floor of Capri, then in the next frame they are on the bottom, and vice verse. A drinking game could be made out of how many times it randomly cuts to bull horns in the first orgy scene. There was at one point a legendary 210 minute version that was shown at Cannes, but that version has since disappeared. I've given up looking for it, and I can find anything.
"Caligula" is now accepted as an experiment in mainstream movie making. Combining lush historical epics with hardcore cinema. Some don't think it worked, but I do, and I feel that it is much more than just a mere "experiment." It is a film, and a beautiful one at that. The combination of those multiple genres is what makes the movie so original and so gutsy, and with the backdrop of Pagan Rome, the depravity shown here makes sense and is needed. I complain about Guccione a lot in this review, but I will go on record in saying that if it weren't for him, this movie wouldn't exist, in any of his version. Hell, we wouldn't have even gotten the cheap Italian "Caligula" rip off films! "Caligula II: Messalina, Messalina" anyone? Another reason why I cherish this gem so much is that I honestly don't think there will ever in a million years be another movie like it, or even to compare to it, unless I make it myself!
Hmmmm.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
caligula79
|
|
Member: Brad
Location: Long Beach, CA
Reviews written: 141
Trusted by: 21 members
About Me:
Reside in both Long Beach, California and Springfield, Illinois. I'm region-polar.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.