top of page
Robin Holabird

Caligula's Ultimate cut misses mark

Updated: Sep 20

You might find the image of a 1980s poster for Caligula if dictionaries featured photos for the phrase “hot mess,”—or to quote one definition, “something in a state of extreme disorder or disarray.” The movie drowned in chaos, enhanced by Penthouse producer Bob Guccione minimizing his cast’s impressive stars by adding newly filmed unsimulated sex scenes. These supposedly fit into the story of the real-life Roman emperor who served four years in an era of debauchery and cruelty. Director Tinto Brass and screenwriter Gore Vidal removed their names from credits, but actors like Malcolm McDowell, Peter O’Toole, John Gielgud, and Helen Mirren remained on hand with hints that perhaps a better film lay in discarded footage. Decades later, Producer Thomas Negovan plowed through those remnants to create an almost entirely new film that runs nearly three hours. True, cooling down with more time and dialogue for those great actors and an actual storyline instead of cobbled together sex scenes makes Caligula: The Ultimate Cut a better film than the first; but not a great one. While a plethora of nudity and violence remain, both prove less distracting and shocking than in prior decades since so many shows like Game of Thrones make blood and lust a big part of the story. For that matter, Shakespeare’s various historic tragedies never lacked sex and brutality, but create lasting impact because of insights and explorations characters quenching a thirst for power. When it comes to such perceptiveness, Caligula misses the mark, cut or uncut. Still, the revised version showcases actors more effectively—and not surprisingly, the cast performs well. Negovan also deserves credit for dedication to a time-consuming



salvage project that highlights the integral part editing plays in delivering a movie, making Caligula: The Ultimate Cut an experiment rather than masterpiece.

11 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page