New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 390613" data-attributes="member: 8">While we accept and enjoy that a lot of bad and bizarre things keep  happening to our beloved soap families-and-neighbourhoods - mostly because they  are supposed to forget what happened in the previous seasons, if they want to keep their sanity - it doesn't always work that way for their cinematic counterparts. It also depends on the genre, of course.Perhaps this sequel would have been better if it had been the story of a different family, the way they did it in The Conjuring series.I've rewatched a part of it some time ago because I remembered the attack of the braces and I wanted to see that again. And that's what the film looks like: "some things we didn't do in the first one". It really is the only appeal of these kind of sequels. What bizarre death scenes are they going to show in the next Final Destination? Will there be more blood and big teeth in the next Jaws film? It's not the most artistic kind of appeal, but an appeal nonetheless.CALIGULA (1979)[ATTACH=full]51392[/ATTACH]This had been in my to-watch list for ages and yet, for reasons I can't explain, I've never been terribly eager to watch it.While it's still very much the curiosity it was back then, the "watching everything you want on the internet" in these modern days may have tempered some of its controversy.Let's start with the one thing that put a smile on my face. Caligula has "conquered" Britain and he's got the papyrus to prove it!Not that that makes any sense, and it wasn't supposed to make sense, but naturally it made me think of another famously nefarious character.The way I see it, CALIGULA is made up of three elements. The characters and story, the production (it looks like they had some money to spend) and the pornography.The challenge here is to present it as one  thing, finding ways to glue it together, as it were. And that's where this film fails because these three elements are competing with each other, with the unfortunate result that almost everything is being cancelled out.The pornography looks too much out of context and I believe it was filmed seperately from the story scenes, so there's already the idea of two films edited together.It is   audacious to bring hardcore porn into a mainstream release (as opposed to "underground" cinema) but since it doesn't involve the actors that matter it isn't quite as envelope-pushing as it wants to be. If you want to see a film that surprises with its erotic themes and nudity and violence then EQUUS (1977) is a much better choice. It also happens to be a terrific film with incredible performances.Furthermore, the producer's argument to incorporate graphic sex for the sake of realism is absolute nonsense because there's no real torture and killing in it (well, thankfully).All these orgy scenes could have been filmed with just enough nudity to spice things up.The sets and set pieces are a feast for the eyes, to the point that it almost makes the actors disappear, and that's why it's another thing that kinda operates on its own.I understand that they wanted to show off but good cinematography also means that you understand what's important in what particular scene. It's never used to create a certain mood or intimacy, it's just standing there tall and shiny. Sorry but I can't be bothered to apologise for any unintentional puns.But the worst is yet to come because this film has absolutely nothing to say.These Ancient Rome stories are, by nature, always fun to watch because of all the plotting and scheming, the feuds and treachery, the paranoia and lust for power.CALIGULA tackles some of it but only in the broadest way because Caligula himself is the only mover & shaker and all the other characters stand by passively.The film has zero sense of conflict or suspense; the death of Drusilla is the only thing that came close to something of a drama but everything else in the film doesn't allow it to be.Malcom McDowell is up for the task of playing the psychopathic child in a man's body, but since that's the only thing the story has to offer it becomes a bit irritating after a while.I wouldn't call it a Bad Film but my personal experience might be even worse because for all it's obvious and somewhat successful attempt to create controversy I found it an underwhelming 156 minutes to sit through. My curiosity is the only thing that's been satisfied and even that doesn't mean very much.I could tell anyone who wants to hear it that "I've watched Caligula!" - but does anyone care?Disc 2 has the....*grabs DVD*....alternative pre-release version which is three minutes shorter. I'm not in hurry to spot the differences.The picture quality of both films is dreadful by today's standards. I guess the high definition transfer was something else in 2009. I'm very forgiving when it comes to digitalising old crap movies and TV series, but for a film from 1979 this is not acceptable anymore.Disc 3 (!) has the best part: The Making Of. The secrecy and anti-press regarding the production of the film really creates the promise of something extraordinary and exciting, like, maybe the Best Film Ever Made.Watching those people working very hard to create the epic sets - and knowing that it's all going to be a waste of time, energy and craftsmanship - almost made me cry.It also got hours of alternative and deleted scenes and one of those scenes was filmed in Charlie Chaplin style (maybe it was simply the wrong speed) and I thought, hey that works!Instead of the porn they could have done lots of wacky stuff, have a UFO descend on the stage, do a musical number about cunnilingus, just anything to make it more fun.[MEDIA=youtube]gQBZhwhUjxc[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?