Andrew!

I really wanted to like this little short animated film. I am a big fan of (western-non-japanimation)(see heavy metal, heavy traffic, allegro non-troppo, fantastic planet)work, and it was with a lot of curiosity that I stumbled on this piece in a pawn shop. The DVD is divided into 9 chapters, each with a new piece of the puzzle that makes up the "treach" character's life. I loved the realistic street dialogue, with all the curse words and some nudity. For a very brief moment or two, I actually felt the fearless pulse of a Ralph Bakshi work. But unfortunately, this animation itself, can not even hold a candle to his work.

In fact, that's my only real complaint about the whole thing. Many of the backgrounds in the animation appear to be pixelated (!)or overblown, and at time we're reduced to a comic strip like approach where the characters are talking, but nobody's moving. This project looks as though, they had some good ideas, script, and voice talent, and then ran out of money or backing for the project, but put it together anyway.

If you're a big animation fan, or a fan of the the Urban gangster genre, check out this little piece. Maybe somebody can re-make this one day, or make some other material in this same vein, and be able to put the creative work deserving of a story like this one.

(Spoilers Herein) The infamous Caligula. Labeled as "the most controversial movie in history". Even it's actors were allegedly appalled by the film (did all of them even see it?). And there are reviews a mile long all over the internet about how "rediculously bad" this film is. Here are my thoughts; Although I have mixed emotions about it, I liked it. I can say with all honesty, that I have never seen anything quite like it, anywhere before.

(SPOILERS)The premise is as follows; a young budding man takes the already corrupted throne of power from Tiberius, who is sick and dieing. He makes the love of his life (his sister)his unofficial "queen", and allows the power of his new found authority to go to his head. After running the might empire into the ground, a conspiracy conspires against him and he is assasinated (along with his family). Another page in Roman history is turned.

I feel it's "king of bad cinema" reputation is highly overrated and incorrect. Is it revolutionary in idea? Not really. Is it the worst film I've ever seen? No way. This type of period piece has been done many times before. The 'power corrupts' story and the 'decadent portrait of the pagan Romans' theme is pretty much a universal theme in the sword and sandal epics of American Cinema (see Ben Hur,Gladiator,etc.) But the Excesses of Rome were never quite as in your face as they are here. Although many would disagree, I feel I can take this film's plot line somewhat seriously. It has a story-structure in which I must admit, does grow dimmer by the end of the film, but has wonderful actors, all giving a very serious and credible performance. It appears to have a budget, with gigantic sets, hundreds of extras (mostly Italian I believe)and it has a heart, of sorts, in the caligula character, and his control over Rome and it's plight. This alone is more than most Arnold Schwartzenegger(sp?) movies have, but nobody seems to spend a lot of time bashing these flicks. Although Caligula the character, is despicable, and does some pretty terrible things, I felt as though, in the film, he was only the product of the society that gave him that position. Malcom Mcdowell(sp?) portrays an eagerness, to his soon coming of power, at the beginning of the film and then lets his grasp on reality immediately start slipping when he takes the throne. I enjoyed seeing the softer side of Caligula at the beginning (when he is shown frolicking in the forest with his lover).

Much of what you heard about the sex in this movie is true. The sex is real and all of it seems to be shot as though the director (Bob G.)wasn't even aware of censorship laws. In terms of intensity, you won't find anything here that you didn't see in "In the Realm of the Senses", in which many, including myself, deem as an artistic classic. For those of you who haven't seen that film, this means real penetration, real mouth to genital contact etc. In terms of content, I saw a lot of shots that by themselves, look like they were shot by someone who deals in the business of sex (and fetishisms; the urination scene for instance). Personally I did not even really feel the excess of sex scenes in the film until the final orgy scene, where I admit, it did seem slightly gratuitus. Sometimes I felt the director was trying to use the sex scenes as metaphors for the story line as we realized the full excesses of Caligula's corrupted reign. And that we the viewer were also indulging in Rome's excesses with Caligula, and we were supposed to feel uncomfortable about that.

There seems to be myths about the film that go unchallenged; First, there is no 210 min. print in commercial existence. Only the "unrated cut" (which is the one I have seen), and the "R" rated cut. Second, contrary to many user-posts on IMDb, there are no scenes of bestiality (although he's uncomfortably fond of his horse), there are no scenes of pedophilia (child-sex)(although there is a verbal reference to it in the line: "do you like little boys?" "No, big boys-my soldiers")and there are NO scenes of necrophilia (although it is perhaps suggested with Drusilla).

All in all, Caligula's flaw seems to be excess, and a lack of control over something that was too big for anyone to hang onto. But then again, that could be said of the Roman Empire... And whether the film is historically accurate or not, there certainly were rulers of ancient Rome who were capable of this kind of behavior and probably did act this way. Not for the squeamish, but for those who are used to contemporary sex and violence, give it a shot. Also check out "Queen Margot" for another view of a different corrupted empire.