Caligula

1981 "What would you have done if you had been given absolute power of life and death over everybody else in the whole world?"
Caligula
5.3| 2h36m| R| en| More Info
Released: 16 October 1981 Released
Producted By: Penthouse Films International
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The perversion behind imperial Rome, the epic story of Rome's mad Emporer. All the details of his cruel, bizarre reign are revealed right here: His unholy sexual passion for his sister, his marriage to Rome's most infamous prostitute, his fiendishly inventive means of disposing those who would oppose him, and more.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Penthouse Films International

Trailers & Images

Reviews

rockman182 Here's a film I wanted to check out because I'm a fan of Roman Empire era films. I wasn't that familiar with Caligula and his reign so that was an added interest. I learned that the X rated cut of this film has tons of sex and nudity in it but that kind of stuff is not something that I mind if the film has substance. Unfortunately, I can see why this film was basically panned by all parties upon release.This film is meant to be a bit of a life and time of Caligula's reign but it just meanders so much into pornographic, unsimulated sex. There's just not much going story-wise. I read that Tinto Brass (the director) had nothing to do with the hardcore sex scenes that were added to the film, and I can see why he and the cast wanted to distance themselves from the film.The cast of this film is actually pretty great. You have young Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren just to name a few. Its just crazy that a film with starpower like that can fall so off the cliff. I know the initial writer and director didn't have much to do with the finished product, but damn what where the producers thinking? They must have been looking to shock viewers and create the most controversial film of the decade.Erm, I can't really recommend this film because its hard to actually watch with someone else. Its about as close to watching a porno with a plot as you'll get in Hollywood. The film gets distracted in its multiple sex scenes; so much so that the plot suffers greatly and any interest you have in this long dreary film is lost right away. I can understand mixing sex with Roman culture media (i.e. Spartacus and Rome), just make sure its not excessive.5/10
acgogo57 I think John Waters could have taken this material and done a much better job with Divine as Caligula, of course. Now THAT would have been edgy and outre entertainment.Most of the talent associated with this movie washed their hands (probably literally) after the fist "f" scene. I wanted to take a shower after watching it. I know Gore Vidal, always a good sport, had his name struck from the writing credits, but thought the film was hilarious anyway. And it really is a big joke. I think Guccione was just astonished that he got the money to do it and attracted so many big names. I believe only McDowall approved of the final cut.
Solnichka McPherson Okay, this is almost a pornographic film, but not quite - just very sexually graphic. If you have an active sex life, you can deal with this movie easily. That being said, it is one of the more interesting films you could possibly view, all things considered. The film tells the story of Gaius Caligula, the Roman emperor who ruled from 37-41 A.D. and was well-known for his vacant soul. His neglect of matters of state and his indulgence in pleasure and torture drive the plot towards its climactic ending. Technically, the film is interesting - some imagery will stay in your mind, such as the circular guillotine. The sets are lavish, and overall, the film is a firm cinematic achievement, technically speaking. The acting is mostly stellar - McDowell is able to step into the psychotic Caligula, both alternately as a charming head-of-state and a deranged pervert, sometimes in the same scene. O'Toole and Gielgud are only in the film's first 45 minutes, as Tiberius and Nerva, respectively. O'Toole is particularly captivating as the dying emperor, fraught with syphilis (according to historical records) and paranoia. Gielgud's performance is lukewarm - maybe he'd already seen the rest of the movie before filming his scenes? Helen Mirren is captivating as well as Caesonia, the lascivious wife of Caligula. I've seen her in many films, but this and Excalibur are the two I remember most, to be sure. Finally, Theresa Ann Savoy is very strong as Drusula, the incestuous sister of Caligula - she plays the role with a certain soft firmness of character, likable and rational, at least when compared to McDowell's Caligula. The film is full of nudity, sex and graphic images. Some add to the content, some detract - that can be said of any film's imagery. A viewer should not let the mere content dictate the effect. What these images do is lend validity to the story being told, a story of an emperor not fit to be so, an emperor more obsessed with his own benefits rather than the good of the people and the Empire, an emperor so morally depraved - well, this may have been the only way to truly tell the story of Caligula. And it's worth watching, at least once. The first time I tried to watch it, I was 19, and not ready to deal with the content. It is a film for mature audiences only, no doubt. It's up to you to assess your own maturity level, though - not me.
crendine 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.