3/10
Two long hours of "huh?"
12 April 2003
This is without question the HARDEST TO WATCH movie that I've ever seen. Not only is the movie bad in itself, but every element in it is either pretentious, dull, or overly silly. The music for one - nothing special. The cinematography consists of either weird stylized shots or extremely sloppy ones - with bad focus and more headroom than non-headroom.

The actual plot of the movie is nothing more than a series of unconnected scenes of gay men either A) eating, B) performing various homosexual acts, C) just sitting around, or D) occasionally actually doing interesting stuff like fighting or moving around. However, even the stuff that should be interesting, such as the violence, is so oddly distant-seeming that even it is boring. You know a movie is bad when even a scene involving George Eastman as a giant minotaur in a maze, swinging a giant club left and right is boring. I've sat through many-a-Herzog/Tarvkovsky movie and didn't have any problems, but this movie had me squirming in my seat, constantly checking the DVD player to see how much time was left.

While Danilo Donati's costume and production design are top-notch, this movie has nothing else going for it. Poor pacing, poor planning, atrocious dubbing (even in the native Italian version), and dialog that's semi-poetic but doesn't make any sense. This movie is 2 very,very long hours of "huh?".

Gordon Mitchell, Capucine, and George Eastman all in medium-sized roles help elevate this movie a little bit, but they've all been in much more watchable films.

I thought I'd never say this, but if you really want to see a movie about the decadence of ancient Rome, watch Caligula instead.
28 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed