MermanSam

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.

I only wish that I could relive the first time I saw this movie. I was 17, and my father innocently rented it thinking it was a routine crime drama. Neither of us had any idea what we were in for. We only made it through the first 15 minutes, which may be the most preposterous 15 minutes ever committed to celluloid. Later, with friends, I watched the rest of the film. The whole remainder of it proved to be utterly boring and worthless, characterized by unrestrained sleaze, incomprehensible plot twists, lengthy irrelevant portions, and an entirely unsatisfying and pathetic climax. I have watched the first section perhaps 20 times. I have viewed the entire film maybe twice. "Roots of Evil" is truly one of the worst films ever made, and I don't mean that in an exaggerated way. The production values of even "Plan 9 From Outer Space" are superior to those of this low-budget, no-value thriller. Nonetheless, it is so completely awful that it is genuinely entertaining.

The highlight of this film is Alex Cord, who attempts an over-the-top performance like that of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." I actually find Alex Cord to be a highly likable, though not necessarily a highly skilled, actor. In fact, he is less an actor than a unique and inimitable screen presence. If you appreciate his physical mannerisms and the unusual cadence of his voice, as I do, then you will enjoy watching him perform regardless of the poor quality of the film in which he appears. But if you expect compelling drama or gritty realism, you will be disappointed beyond comprehension.

"Roots of Evil" is also notable for featuring dialogue so atrocious that a friend and I once planned to make a concept album about the movie in which we included parts of the actual dialogue between songs. We abandoned that plan, however, when we determined that our effort might actually compel people to view the film. I cannot recommend that particular course of action. But I realize that some, upon reading this review, may choose to do so anyway. Such individuals do so at their own risk.