Caligula and Messalina

"Caligula and Messalina" (1981), directed by Bruno Mattei and Antonio Passalia, is a film that attempts to delve into the debauchery, political intrigue, and power struggles of ancient Rome, specifically during the reign of Emperor Caligula. The movie is a curious amalgamation of historical drama, exploitation, and softcore pornography, which may either intrigue or repel viewers, depending on their tastes.

The film's narrative revolves around the tumultuous relationship between Caligula (played by David Hemmings) and his sister-turned-wife Messalina (played by Lori Wagner). It showcases their hedonistic lifestyle, ruthless methods to maintain power, and the web of betrayals that ultimately leads to their downfall. The plot, while not entirely historically accurate, does manage to provide a glimpse into the darker side of Roman society, where excess and vice were often celebrated.

One of the film's strongest aspects is its production design. The sets, costumes, and props are meticulously crafted, giving the movie an authentic and immersive feel. The cinematography, too, is commendable, with some beautifully composed shots that capture the grandeur and decadence of Rome.

However, the film's strengths are often overshadowed by its weaknesses. The acting, for instance, is uneven and often veers into the realm of melodrama. David Hemmings's portrayal of Caligula, while adequately menacing, lacks the depth and complexity that the character deserves. Lori Wagner, on the other hand, delivers a more nuanced performance as Messalina but is often let down by the script's tendency to reduce her to a one-dimensional femme fatale.

The film's pacing is another issue. The narrative meanders at times, with scenes of gratuitous nudity and violence that feel more like filler than an integral part of the story. This, coupled with the movie's nearly two-hour runtime, can make for a somewhat tedious viewing experience. 🍷🎭💥

"Caligula and Messalina", obviously made to cash in on the dispiriting success of the notorious "Caligula", is not quite as bad as that movie, which is faint praise indeed. It is, however, almost painfully boring: proof, if any were required, that wall-to-wall sex and nudity can't prevent a movie from becoming soporific.

The plot is, allegedly, about the Roman emperor Caligula, Messalina (the most notorious woman in Roman history), Agrippina (her rival), and the emperor Claudius. The movie has very little dialogue, and practically no exposition, so if you don't go in knowing a fair bit about these classical figures, you'll be left in the dark for much of the movie's run-time.

Though, of course, "Caligula and Messalina" isn't a historical picture. It's an exploitation movie. So, there are a lot of ridiculous added details, such as Messalina first getting Caligula's attention by fighting in the colosseum. Women didn't fight in the colosseum anyway, but even if they had, I'm pretty sure a blood-relative of the current emperor would never have found her way there. The movie ignores the fact that Messalina was related to Caligula and just gives you this lame introduction for her character, which could have worked a bit better if it had been directed with some kind of skill.

This is a motif throughout the whole film, in fact, and is part of the reason why it's so boring. Capable filmmakers shoot establishing shots of scenes that are framed so that we can see everything we need to see. The camera then provides close-ups of actors or action or significant details to make us feel involved in the action. "Caligula and Messalina" does the first part of this, and just seems to leave it at that. The camera is always too far away. If the director can't get us involved in the story, he could at least give us a good look at the sex and nudity the movie is chock full of, but alas, we don't get that either. The distance between the camera and the actors, and the generally poor camera angles, leaves most of the nudity hard to make out.

I'm pretty sure that if you are unfortunate enough to watch this movie, there's only one thing about it you will remember, and that is the two scenes of horses mating. One was more than enough, but "Caligula and Messalina" inexplicably includes two such scenes. Was Bruno Mattei, the filmmaker, actually trying to cause harm to his audience by making us watch this?

This film does a terrible job of introducing you to the characters. Unless you've watched previous related media or know your history, you wouldn't have much of a clue who anyone is and how they relate to each other.

Locations are not clearly defined and you can't tell if characters that are seen to be travelling are either coming or going.

The nudity was satisfactory when combined with what should have been a plot but the sex scenes were disappointing when comparing it to the 1979 version.

To me, a lot of it seemed irrelevant to the story until I realised that the film was basically showing us that Messalina likes to increase her mileage no matter what.

When the pool scene took place I assumed they would be caught and someone would be killed... no, next bedfellow please!

There is a scene with two donkeys and then another with two horses soon afterwards. Both scenes are real thus more x-rated than anything that the humans do in this.

The simulated sex is everywhere in this and rather boring. They couldn't quite find a balance between genitals being far apart during the act or touching but not actually doing the act. Either way, it wasn't appealing.

The only thing that really interested me was one of the actresses that is always at Caligula's or Messalina's side. The woman with the tanned skin who was clearly a dancer by profession. She looked familiar as though I have seen her in modern films; although in reality she would be about 60 years old by now.

Overall, not really worth watching unless you are like me and you can't help but keep going down 'rabbit holes'.

I just saw this movie, and I cannot believe how poor it was even for an exploitation film. I am not familiar with the accurate history of the real Caligula but it could not have been anything like in this movie. Of course, that's not necessary in an exploitation film but in this case it is just too stupid. Their seems to have been absolutely no research into the actual life in Rome at that time. Moreover, the sex scenes are really poor. Maybe with one or two erotic moments, and with one or two attractive females. The torture scenes are just terrible and depressing. At least a movie like "Hostel" portrays torture in a more interesting fashion - there is something about the early exploitation films that make you want to scream out in boredom at the stupid torture scenes. All things considered, this is a horrible movie which should never have been made. I feel the same about movies about torture in the Holocaust. Movies like that are simply dangerous to the mind, and a complete waste of time and life. It is difficult to prove that movies like that are actually damaging to the mind, and I don't mean it in any moral sense, but we all know that movies like that are absolute trash, and that we would be better off watching something interesting. I bought Caligula because I thought it might be good but it wasn't. I think, the Druuna comic book series is excellent. But this Caligula film doesn't deliver anything other than negative and stupid stuff.

Released in 1982, this is an Italian film which was probably intended to exploit the publicity associated with Tinto Brasso's notorious 1979 release "Caligola". It is clearly a low budget production, shot mainly in the studio, with a number of larger scale dramatic sequences borrowed from other films incorporated at points where these fit reasonably well. Several versions have been released, and run for significantly different times (for example, IMDb lists its running time at 111m, but my VHS copy runs only 92m 41s), so be aware that certain of my comments may not be applicable to all versions. The film provides an interesting study of the life of Messalina, the Roman Empress first married to the mad emperor Caligula and then after his assassination (which takes place at about the mid-point of the film) to his successor Claudius; and it would have been better titled Caligula and Claudius, or just Messalina. Historically it is not strictly accurate but probably provides a fairly realistic interpretation of life in Rome during the periods of the two Emperors concerned. The first half provides a beautifully crafted confirmation of the dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the second shows a very different scene when Claudius takes the throne, introduces careful and incorruptible administrators and rapidly repairs the damage to the fabric of Roman society caused by his predecessor. Presumably the intention is to show that absolute power does no more than give any ruler the freedom to behave in accordance with his natural character, and in this sense it can be regarded as a film with an important message to convey.

Historically the reign of Caligula is regarded as exceptionally violent and cruel, and the film has to make this clear to viewers who are not familiar with the history of this period. Whereas other filmmakers have succumbed to the temptation to exploit the violence in a pornographic way, it is greatly to the credit of this film that unnecessary violence has been largely avoided and much of that which is shown remains implicit rather than explicit. Caligula maintained a vast network of spies, and individuals who spoke against him would often disappear - probably to meet an unspeakable end. This is brought out early in this film, not by showing such a sudden disappearance and what followed, but by a restrained warning from one army officer to another who had been a little too loose in his conversation. There is a brief scene in a Roman torture chamber when plotters against the Emperor are being interrogated, but (in my copy at least) this is less explicit than similar scenes in many films depicting events in mediaeval Europe. A legend that Messalina, a very junior lady in Caligula's court, was trained by her mother to come to his attention by mastering such masculine skills as swordplay, and then demanding to demonstrate these, has been incorporated into the film; and the nearest it comes to becoming pornographic is during a fairly graphic swordplay sequence in the Coliseum which unexpectedly ends in not Messalina but the gladiator having to appeal to the Emperor to spare his life. This sequence clearly shows the violence and cruelty which was associated with the Roman Circus. However it forms an important part of the story, and in my opinion it is treated with enough restraint to be more acceptable than many of the violent scenes incorporated (with less reason) in certain films intended exclusively for children today. Later, even the assassination of Caligula is shown without a rather meaningless bloodbath involving all and sundry; and in the second half of the film after Claudius has taken the throne, the trust shown by the Emperor in his chosen advisers (both military and civil) is clearly brought out. Nudity?, yes there is nudity in many of the scenes showing the decadence of Caligula's Imperial Court, but it is never obtrusive - it always seems a natural part of any scene where it occurs. Afterwards, when looking back on the film, it is very hard to remember which scenes these were. There are none of the visual excesses to be found in films such as Tinto Brasso's "Caligola". Another sequence displays the continuing decadent life at Court after Caligula's death during a period when Claudius and his legions were campaigning in Britain, this very effectively shows decadence as an ongoing characteristic of life among the Roman ruling class of the period, not something which was introduced at the whim of a mad Emperor. This film is definitely not just softcore pornography, and it provides two very important lessons for us today. The first is that absolute power will only corrupt those rulers who are corruptible, whilst the second, even more important but maybe a little less obvious, is that mankind has changed very little during the past two millennia; and that many rulers, such as Hitler, Idi Amin, Pinochet or Sadaam Hussein who have been given absolute power during the past century, have shown a behaviour pattern very little different from that of Caligula.

Overall this film, together with Fellini's Satyricon, have both significantly contributed to my limited understanding of what life may have been like in classical Rome. No one today can really appreciate how it would have felt if they had been a part of Roman society, but we must recognise that, for most Roman citizens, family life continued under Roman law in what was probably a remarkably stable pattern for the period. This film is enjoyable to watch and, despite having been rated by many jurisdictions for 18+ viewing only, I believe that watching it would make a positive contribution to the history education of most high school children.