is this movie worse than salo?
Salo isn't a bad movie. Unlike Caligula, it isn't disjointed, and it has a point, especially if one is familiar with the body of themes that Pasolini's dabbled in. Again, not for everyone. Like Caligula, it does sort of have that Fellini-esque uncomfortablenes going on, but Pasolini
did work with Fellini, allegedly even being the actual director of his first movie.
Whoa. There's fisting in Caligula?
It's uh, off-screen fisting, actually. It's not on camera, so I'm sure they didn't actually film it (especially because Malcolm McDowell is the fister), but the lead up to the scene is pretty fuckin' great.
Caligula was weird and terrible, but somehow I didn't feel like watching it was a waste of time. You HAVE to see this movie once.
Pretty much exactly how I feel. Objectively defending it might be impossible, but as far as perverse spectacles go, it doesn't get much more perverse or weird.
Helen Mirren's naked in this one, right?
Uh, yes, you at least see her titties. The amount of nudity in this movie is indescribable, so I can't really recall who's whats you actually see, exactly.
So I downloaded a collection of the sex scenes and I could swear there's a cheeseburger in there. Did you notice one, TVC?
It has its fair share of gender and orientation bending, particularly during the films like 3-4 orgy scenes, but none of it is really the focus of things. I'd imagine that was sort of the edge of what they could get away with when the movie was made.
TVC, I'm shocked that you hadn't seen Caligula before. Like, seriously, totally shocked.
I never really sought it out because I was expecting something non-entertaining, and just terrible. I have had access to edited cuts, but I figured what's the point? Despite, uh, praising the movie now, I think seeing it with its more lascivious scenes would have been a mistake.
