A dramatization of the ascent to Caesar and subsequent reign of Caligula, one of the most notorious leaders of ancient Rome.A dramatization of the ascent to Caesar and subsequent reign of Caligula, one of the most notorious leaders of ancient Rome.A dramatization of the ascent to Caesar and subsequent reign of Caligula, one of the most notorious leaders of ancient Rome.
- Awards
- 1 win & 2 nominations total
Mirella D'Angelo
- Livia
- (as Mirella Dangelo)
Rick Parets
- Mnester
- (as Richard Parets)
Pola Muzyka
- Subura Singer
- (as Paula Mitchell)
Joss Ackland
- Chaerea
- (English version)
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
This movie gets way too much hate. It is not even close to being one of the worst movies I've seen.
Malcolm Mcdowell is fantastic as always. It is worth seeing just for his performance alone.
I was also really impressed by the costumes, I thought they were gorgeous. My favorite was the one Caligula wears near the end which is a gorgeous metallic green. You can tell the effort put behind not only the wardrobe but the hairstyles and the sets, they are some of the best aspects of the film. The costume designer Danilo Donati actually won some Oscars because of his work in other films.
Now, everybody who dislikes the film do so because of the very explicit porn. I agree most of the time is excessive and goes on for way too long, I think because of the nature of the story and character a certain amount of explicitness works, but for the most part I find it too be too much and too long.
If you take away the porn, this movie would be far better received. There's an actual story and it has great performances for the most part.
It is not perfect however, I do feel the movie stayed one note from beginning to end, doesnt feel like a 3 act story but it was worth it in the end. I am really looking forward to watching the new version that premiered at Cannes this year, hoping it becomes available to the general public very soon.
Malcolm Mcdowell is fantastic as always. It is worth seeing just for his performance alone.
I was also really impressed by the costumes, I thought they were gorgeous. My favorite was the one Caligula wears near the end which is a gorgeous metallic green. You can tell the effort put behind not only the wardrobe but the hairstyles and the sets, they are some of the best aspects of the film. The costume designer Danilo Donati actually won some Oscars because of his work in other films.
Now, everybody who dislikes the film do so because of the very explicit porn. I agree most of the time is excessive and goes on for way too long, I think because of the nature of the story and character a certain amount of explicitness works, but for the most part I find it too be too much and too long.
If you take away the porn, this movie would be far better received. There's an actual story and it has great performances for the most part.
It is not perfect however, I do feel the movie stayed one note from beginning to end, doesnt feel like a 3 act story but it was worth it in the end. I am really looking forward to watching the new version that premiered at Cannes this year, hoping it becomes available to the general public very soon.
This film, as with all, has good points and bad points.
In general, I feel that the good ones far outweigh the bad.
The film simply gives the story of the rise and death of Emperor Caligula in a very straight-forward manner. Indeed, it can be seen as shocking, but I think that this is a side-effect of it's desire to be realistic, rather than a deliberate act on the part of the film-makers.
The cinematography and camera work is awful. The huge sets seem at times almost claustrophobic which is an absolute crime considering the magnificence of them. There is also too much emphasis on Caligula himself, to the detriment of revealing some important traits in other characters, making them seem somewhat shallow at times.
The sex scenes are very well placed within the context of the film. I thought that only two scenes stood out as being unnecessarily overt, but for the most part, the explicitness is on the fringe of the focus of each scene, while also playing a major part in the atmosphere.
Never once did I feel that any dialogue was out of place, nor did the acting strike me as being bad.
By far the biggest problem with this film is the fact that the sexual content is widely advertised and therefore anticipated before viewing. This may cause people to focus dominantly on those scenes without really looking at the film as a whole. For me, it enhanced the film. Not in a particularly titillating way, but in the fact that there was no compromise during scenes of sexual acts. Roman orgies are regarded to have been extremely opulent and promiscuous - I found it refreshing to see one as it may have actually been rather than lots of fully-clothed laughing fat men pouring red wine over their faces and eating grapes while draped with female automatons.
In summary, Caligula definitely has it's place in film history due to it's controversy, but if you look beyond that controversy, you should find a rather good film which neatly tells the story of how power can turn someone into a madman.
In general, I feel that the good ones far outweigh the bad.
The film simply gives the story of the rise and death of Emperor Caligula in a very straight-forward manner. Indeed, it can be seen as shocking, but I think that this is a side-effect of it's desire to be realistic, rather than a deliberate act on the part of the film-makers.
The cinematography and camera work is awful. The huge sets seem at times almost claustrophobic which is an absolute crime considering the magnificence of them. There is also too much emphasis on Caligula himself, to the detriment of revealing some important traits in other characters, making them seem somewhat shallow at times.
The sex scenes are very well placed within the context of the film. I thought that only two scenes stood out as being unnecessarily overt, but for the most part, the explicitness is on the fringe of the focus of each scene, while also playing a major part in the atmosphere.
Never once did I feel that any dialogue was out of place, nor did the acting strike me as being bad.
By far the biggest problem with this film is the fact that the sexual content is widely advertised and therefore anticipated before viewing. This may cause people to focus dominantly on those scenes without really looking at the film as a whole. For me, it enhanced the film. Not in a particularly titillating way, but in the fact that there was no compromise during scenes of sexual acts. Roman orgies are regarded to have been extremely opulent and promiscuous - I found it refreshing to see one as it may have actually been rather than lots of fully-clothed laughing fat men pouring red wine over their faces and eating grapes while draped with female automatons.
In summary, Caligula definitely has it's place in film history due to it's controversy, but if you look beyond that controversy, you should find a rather good film which neatly tells the story of how power can turn someone into a madman.
I watched this movie the first time the night-before last.. and watched it again last night and again tonight.
This movie is far from pornography... only a few scenes are hardcore, and only a couple of these are even barely erotic. It does not exactly function as an historical epic, either.
The film quality and lighting would make it appear to date from the 1960s.
The script is mediocre. More drama could be added, however we do have to bear in mind that the Romans followed the school of Stoicism.
The acting (including Malcolm McDowell's) is nothing outstanding, with the exception of Peter O'Toole's Tiberius Caesar. He displays tragedy and lunacy, evoking reactions of disgust, sympathy, pity, and compassion. I found myself much more intrigued by his character and wishing the movie was about his decline from wisdom to near-madness, rather than Caligula. It also caused me to desire to learn more and research the actual life of Tiberius.
The film neither condemns, nor condones. That is probably how it should be.
Where this film succeeds monumentally is the costuming and unabridged realism. This is the first film I've seen to have a character wearing a toga like the one Caligula's sister (a design many Roman women actually wore) wears in the opening scene. The depiction of slaves and the acts of love and brutality are well-done. It is not erotic, it is not horrifying. With the hardcore scenes excised (the version i saw was the complete version), I believe this movie should be shown in every high school World History class. For centuries, Western culture has censored and toned-down representations of its Pagan past. The filmmakers must be applauded for attempting to make an honest epic.
I've become very hard to please when it comes to movies. The last movie I actually liked to a strong degree was Amadeus, which I saw two years ago. Despite its flaws, with its sheer amount of action and atmosphere, I believe this movie deserves a 10.
This movie is far from pornography... only a few scenes are hardcore, and only a couple of these are even barely erotic. It does not exactly function as an historical epic, either.
The film quality and lighting would make it appear to date from the 1960s.
The script is mediocre. More drama could be added, however we do have to bear in mind that the Romans followed the school of Stoicism.
The acting (including Malcolm McDowell's) is nothing outstanding, with the exception of Peter O'Toole's Tiberius Caesar. He displays tragedy and lunacy, evoking reactions of disgust, sympathy, pity, and compassion. I found myself much more intrigued by his character and wishing the movie was about his decline from wisdom to near-madness, rather than Caligula. It also caused me to desire to learn more and research the actual life of Tiberius.
The film neither condemns, nor condones. That is probably how it should be.
Where this film succeeds monumentally is the costuming and unabridged realism. This is the first film I've seen to have a character wearing a toga like the one Caligula's sister (a design many Roman women actually wore) wears in the opening scene. The depiction of slaves and the acts of love and brutality are well-done. It is not erotic, it is not horrifying. With the hardcore scenes excised (the version i saw was the complete version), I believe this movie should be shown in every high school World History class. For centuries, Western culture has censored and toned-down representations of its Pagan past. The filmmakers must be applauded for attempting to make an honest epic.
I've become very hard to please when it comes to movies. The last movie I actually liked to a strong degree was Amadeus, which I saw two years ago. Despite its flaws, with its sheer amount of action and atmosphere, I believe this movie deserves a 10.
Let's not kid ourselves here, all ye art students, film-school nerds, and other self-loathing "cinema l'arte" snobs: had this exact same movie been released under the banner "directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini" you would have loved it - sorry: CLAIMED to have loved it - and praised it to high heaven, espousing its virtues in long essays, justifying its extreme sex and violence through some b.s. semantic pseudo-intellectual movie-critic-jargon mumbo-jumbo.
Go on, admit it. No-one will laugh. We promise.
This movie has been unanimously dismissed as exploitative trash and of no cinematic value by "notable" movie critics.
After having seen the full two-and-a-half hour version: a) I can certainly see why THEY would choose to view it that way b) I totally disagree The fact that "Caligula" was financed by Penthouse (gasp!) and directed by Tinto Brass (oh no!) is what this is all about.
An excellent cast includes McDowell (an ideal choice for Caligula - or any devious lunatic, for that matter) and Mirren (at the height of her enormous sex-appeal). There is terrific music from Khachaturian, an interesting story, some suspense, etc. A strong stomach is needed to watch this gore-fest, though.
A corny, historically inaccurate, fairy-tale-like piece of crap like "Gandhi" gets world-wide recognition, while a brutally realistic film about another historical figure gets the finger. Go figure.
Go on, admit it. No-one will laugh. We promise.
This movie has been unanimously dismissed as exploitative trash and of no cinematic value by "notable" movie critics.
After having seen the full two-and-a-half hour version: a) I can certainly see why THEY would choose to view it that way b) I totally disagree The fact that "Caligula" was financed by Penthouse (gasp!) and directed by Tinto Brass (oh no!) is what this is all about.
An excellent cast includes McDowell (an ideal choice for Caligula - or any devious lunatic, for that matter) and Mirren (at the height of her enormous sex-appeal). There is terrific music from Khachaturian, an interesting story, some suspense, etc. A strong stomach is needed to watch this gore-fest, though.
A corny, historically inaccurate, fairy-tale-like piece of crap like "Gandhi" gets world-wide recognition, while a brutally realistic film about another historical figure gets the finger. Go figure.
This is the sort of film that I would have enjoyed stumbling upon as a 15 year old switching through late night BBC 2 and channel 4 at 3am in the morning.
I think I watched the 'Uncut version' of this film. I found it somewhat hard to follow or to understand every motive or decision other that the overlying top most story.
It was just wild decisions of mad man in my opinion. However, now reading details about the film, there would have been cuts and edits here and there that broke up the flow.
It did provoke some thoughts about what it might have been like to live in those times. How life had little value and could be taken away for very minor issues.
It also highlighted how certain types of entertainment media still existed, it just wasn't in the mainstream. As humans, we haven't progressed as much as we would like to think.
I have access to the Ultimate Cut version and watched about 5 mins of it so far. This version has 20 mins more in the run time, missing scenes and some rearranged, different angles and different audio/script.
In those 5 mins, I was able to get a better understanding of the story compared to the uncut version. It even briefly explained initial history of the making of the film. What I will do is probably revisit it in a month.
It was interesting to see Dame Helen Mirren in her physical prime. I've only ever seen her acting over the age of 45.
The film is gory in a low tech way. I don't think I know anyone that I could recommend this to.
I think I watched the 'Uncut version' of this film. I found it somewhat hard to follow or to understand every motive or decision other that the overlying top most story.
It was just wild decisions of mad man in my opinion. However, now reading details about the film, there would have been cuts and edits here and there that broke up the flow.
It did provoke some thoughts about what it might have been like to live in those times. How life had little value and could be taken away for very minor issues.
It also highlighted how certain types of entertainment media still existed, it just wasn't in the mainstream. As humans, we haven't progressed as much as we would like to think.
I have access to the Ultimate Cut version and watched about 5 mins of it so far. This version has 20 mins more in the run time, missing scenes and some rearranged, different angles and different audio/script.
In those 5 mins, I was able to get a better understanding of the story compared to the uncut version. It even briefly explained initial history of the making of the film. What I will do is probably revisit it in a month.
It was interesting to see Dame Helen Mirren in her physical prime. I've only ever seen her acting over the age of 45.
The film is gory in a low tech way. I don't think I know anyone that I could recommend this to.
Did you know
- TriviaDame Helen Mirren described this movie as "an irresistible mix of art and genitals". Although many actors would regret their involvement with the film, Mirren has remained proud of her role as "the most promiscuous woman in all of Rome", as she believed European Cinema was reaching a benchmark in sex positivity and "it was the time to do nudity". She was, however, taken aback with the film's hardcore footage.
- GoofsCaligula squeezes a lemon over a captured slave. Lemons did not reach Europe until the 2nd century, at least 100 years after Caligula's death.
- Crazy creditsDue to numerous pending lawsuits and settlements at the time of the film's release, no one is technically fully credited for writing and directing the finished film.
- Alternate versionsThe censored version of this film has been released of a few occasions in Australia. In March 1981, a censored, R rated release to cinemas was made by Roadshow. Roadshow Home Video subsequently released the same film version to video in September 1984. This version ran for 146 minutes (PAL). It was again re-released by a 'no name' video label in the late 1990's. The censored DVD version appeared in December 2004, released by Warner Vision. The uncut version has been released in Australia, this was the fully uncut, X rated 156 minute PAL version. It was released in January 1985 by 'Palace X Video' - a version that is now an extremely rare collector's item. The uncut version has since been rated R18+ by the Australian classification board in 2021.
- ConnectionsEdited into Video Macumba (1991)
- How long is Caligula?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Calígula
- Filming locations
- Dear Studios, Rome, Lazio, Italy(Studio)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $17,500,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $305
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content