Okay, I tried to be fair. I looked at the cast which includes some very talented actors, the writer who is supposed to be a intellectual giant of sorts.. I saw this film in the movies, and it stunk. I saw the r-rated VHS version and it stunk, and now, I dumbly rented the "unrated" DVD and it was, I believe very much longer, but stunk just as much. I thought perhaps over a quarter century, I would have grown to appreciate this film more. I do not. Please understand that I have nothing against sex on screen, or nudity on screen or just about anything else on screen, as long as it all comes together and makes a good film. This film is not a good film. It is a real, first class stinkeroo. If I had to pick one film to show to a class (an adult class) as an example of how to make a terrible film, this would be it. I wonder, did John Gielgud or Peter O'Toole ever publish any comments on this film? It would be interesting, I think, to hear their comments. If you have a chance to rent this film, rent the R-rated version, because I think (at least if memory serves me) that it is mercifully, shorter.
If you want to watch a low budget film along similar lines, that is not quite as bad as this one, (but still very bad indeed) you might try the less awful "Warrior Queen", which is also, mercifully, shorter. It has lots of nudity and death, but no Gielguds or O'Tooles to waste in its making. They claim that "Caligula" is historically accurate. Perhaps it's true to some extent, but if so, it's a story not worth watching.
If you want to watch a low budget film along similar lines, that is not quite as bad as this one, (but still very bad indeed) you might try the less awful "Warrior Queen", which is also, mercifully, shorter. It has lots of nudity and death, but no Gielguds or O'Tooles to waste in its making. They claim that "Caligula" is historically accurate. Perhaps it's true to some extent, but if so, it's a story not worth watching.