User Reviews

Fellini engages us through a tapestry of decadence during the Roman Empire with such stunning juxtapositions of exceptional images from a collapsing society that one cannot help but be reminded of our own times and its disconcert morality…

The film is freely adapted from Petronius' book, which is the exploits of two young Romans, Ascilto and Encolpio, as they venture throughout the empire, indulging in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships… In the course of this proliferation of sensuality, Ascilto becomes impotent and madly goes for a cure which ends in tragedy for Encolpio…

The movie's treatment of the sexual decadence is remarkably powerful without being explicit… In fact, in light of the mental images it presents, it actually puts on view very little on screen… But there is a great quantity of mysterious whores, hedonists, gluttons, and gross indulgence in carnal pleasure… In the midst of this chaos, however, there is a beautifully light reprieve as the young Romans come across a forsaken villa... A very charming slave girl has remained behind, and she playfully troubles the two men into an erotic game…

Apart from that, the sex is portrayed as bizarre, tempting, suggestive of hidden secrets, violating the rules of morality, and going beyond the limit

This is certainly a unique film. Other film makers were influenced but this was never matched for sheer visual opulence and visionary style. All this does not necessarily make for an easy watch for whilst Fellini is never particularly bothered about having a coherent narrative, this one is as fragmentary and disjointed as they come. Apparently the original written source only exists in bits and pieces and this follows that even towards the end finishing a sequence with half finished sentence. Can't deny the look though and almost any captured frame would be a joy to look at. Its just that here there might be a little too much of a good thing, too rich maybe but hard to overly criticise. Love it or loathe it, this probably really is a film you have to see.

...and because I had read "Satyricon" before I saw it I probably was less baffled by the movie than most people. Very little survives of the content of original story, a few longish bits and lots tiny fragments, sometimes as short as a sentence or a word. All disconnected from each... ...ning and end of Petronius' novel are missing, what we have left suddenly starts in the middle without any background or prelude. And each of the surviving bits is the same way, giving few, if any hints, of how our heroes got there from their last adventure, or how their current one will be resolved. Or even what their current crisis is. We can onl... ...bother making a film of from such a fragmentary source? Because Petronius is wickedly funny and has a gifted insight into human... ...participant in the decadence and depravity, yet judging and commenting on it at the... ...2000 years been read and translated... ...amorallity, but social standards always... ...Fellini captures the spirit not only of Imperial Rome but of... ...doesn't make sense, so like you do in the original, you have to extrapolate based on... ...satiric, sardonic, and visually stunning... ...enjoy...

As far as plots go, movies differ. Some have obvious plots that have been done repeatedly in the history of film/literature culture. You know how the thing is going to end in the first five min. Others have plots that are there, but one has to watch the movie five times before understanding it all. Some do not have plots and everyone knows it, in which case it better have something else that is damn well done! Then comes along a movie, teetering on the thin line of questionable success where one can not tell whether there is a plot or not. If, while watching Satyricon you find yourself wandering whether it is going to wrap up finally into an understandable conclusion after which you can satisfactorily murmur `ahh yes, now I got it'. Well, in the end there is no such luck, sorry lads and lasses. Of the plot the one thing I could gather is that it is the journey of the main character who is searching for something, or some one? Very hard to figure out. It starts out as a conflict between one Greek lad and another who both have unbegotton lust of a younger lad then themselves. The lad ends up choosing one over the other, or something of that strange sort. The other goes off, into something like a whorehouse, or something. The whole thing is bathed in color of unnatural hue. But, I degrees., To get back to the supposed half invisible story line, the supposed main character goes off on a journey of many naked breasted strange looking ladies. The secondary characters all come in and disappear throughout the story. One really has to view this more as a surreal world with little scenes and parts that are not really connected by any great spine, because otherwise one is to be lost for sure. Over all it has the flow of an acid trip with some really pretty boys strange kings (or was there just one) and strange looking women! There is no doubt that there are many subtle points to be made, but it may not at first be clear what they are. Ultimately, if there is any sort of plot it probably revolves around a young man trying to find himself (or his sexuality) though different occurrences.

It was well known that in the late 60's, famed Italian director Federico Fellini experiment with LSD. That's why "Juliet of the Spirits" was so bizarre and colorful. But the 1969 head trip "Fellini Satyricon" was even stranger than previous Fellini films. Loosely based on the novel by Petronius, the beginning of the story concerns two men in the B.C. Roman era fighting over the love of one boy. Later they have many strange and colorful misadventures. This film may be to bizarre for some; with its grotesque images, a mild orgy, dwarfs and even a hermaphrodite goddess. The set pieces are out of this world. It's like being caught in a two hour dream. Many times I had no idea what was going on, but that didn't bother me. Satyricon is a visual decadent head trip of color. Fellini considered this film a sci-fi of the past. I consider Fellini a genius; he's designed a film that makes a great substitute for drugs. If you enjoy "Fellini Satyricon" you should also watch Vera Chytilova's "Daisies" (1966), Alejandro Jodorowsky's "The Holy Mountain" (1973), Guy Maddin's "Careful" (1992) and Tsui Hark's "Green Snake". All of these film contain bright colors and surreal images. Enjoy!

I admire Federico Fellini and what films so far I've seen of his. While not a bad film at all, of the 8 films I've seen(La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Amarcord, La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, Roma, Casanova and Satyricon), Satyricon is my least favourite. I did find the story disjointed, some scenes are fine but others are not sure what tone it wants to be or I wasn't sure what they were trying to do. While the characters are not as detached to the audience in the way the titular character from Casanova is, whereas I identified with the leads of La Strada and especially Nights of Cabiria the characters were never really developed enough to make me care properly. Pacing has rarely, if ever, been an issue in Fellini films, I am well aware that his pacing is largely deliberate, but with a story and characters that I was indifferent to on the most part I will admit that my interest did waver. Also, the parts dealing with sexual immaturity were really quite bizarre to put it politely. However, Satyricon is stunning visually with striking roman garb and costumes beautifully photographed, and Fellini's direction while not as nostalgic as personal as some of his other films is accomplished. The score positively sweeps and accompanies the film very well, while the acting from especially the two leads is very good. Overall, there will be people who admire this film and others who'll find it self-indulgent and perhaps cold. Coming from someone who still isn't sure what she makes of Satyricon, I can understand both sides. I am glad I watched it, however I can't see myself watching it again. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The cinema of the silent and Fascist eras in Italy was characterised by epic movies with mostly mythology-inspired themes. Mussolini, who came into power in 1922, the founder of Cinecittà, did not underestimate the importance of cinema as a means of communicating with the masses. Fellini notoriously called Giulietta Masina's titular character in Notti di Cabiria after the 1913 movie "Cabiria" by Giovanni Pastrone, a grand production with a visual flair not so dissimilar to Satyricon. Literally hundreds of characters parade in front of the camera in this visual orgy of a movie, evoking the memory of lost "Kolossals", or gargantuan budget productions.

Fellini's movie was only loosely inspired by its literary source, Petronius's Satyricon. The nominal "plot" follows two young Roman men, the blonde Encolpio and the brunette Ascilto, introduced as rivals in love for the coquettish, androgynous slave-boy Gitone. When the latter chooses to be with Ascilto, the spurned lover Encolpio becomes involved in a series of adventures, all narrated with a familiar (to Fellini lovers), non-linear narrative structure with temporal inconsistencies and dreamlike, sudden changes of setting and mood. Encolpio attends the decadent banquet of a former slave, Trimalcione, now filthy rich. Eumolpo, an impoverished poet whom Encolpio meets on the way there, despises the wealthy man, all the more so for being rich and for having the nerve to also call himself a poet. The faint-hearted may at this point find much to object to – the lasciviousness with which the banquet guests eat, drink and act lustful with one another is anything but subtle. The Trimalcione sequences felt to me like a satirical commentary on the rise of the nouveau riche in 1960s Italy. A highlight of the banquet scene is the story that the host narrates. It tells of a young widow, an oasis of cinematic calm in among the strident cacophony of the rest of the movie.

In a narrative passage which is reminiscent of the rhythm of dreams (typical of late Fellini, betraying his Jungian tendencies), Encolpio ends up captured by the pirate Lica, who takes him on board his ship. This is where the young buck meets Ascilto and Gitone again, also captives of the tyrant. At this point I was especially impressed with the extraordinary talent of Donati as a set designer. The ship wasn't built to look like a recognisable ship at all, but was rather like a symbol of one. Needless to say that no matter how abstract it was, you knew it was a ship, as its "ship-like essence" was all there! When Encolpio is beaten in a duel with Lica, he is forced to marry the pirate in a ceremony celebrated on the deck. But Lica is decapitated by some political rivals when a new Emperor takes over. "Everything changes so that it can all stay the same" is a cynical saying you still often hear in Italy. It refers to the fact that one greedy ruler will succeed another in a ruthless battle for power and privilege. That's when you realise Satyricon is a brilliant satire of modern society as well.

Encolpio and Ascilto then wander into the aristocratic home of a husband and wife who've just freed their slaves and committed suicide through bleeding themselves to death (a symbol of the death of aristocracy while the nouveau riche are getting fat?). After a threesome with a slave-girl who was left behind in the dead couple's empty home, the two young men attend a sort of sanctuary where an old man exploits the alleged healing powers of a very sick-looking, ethereal hermaphrodite child. Worshippers, lepers, cripples and sick people of all descriptions flock to ask for favours off the allegedly divine hermaphrodite. If this isn't a dark, ruthless parody of the Catholic practice of worshipping saints' relics, I don't know what is!

Subsequently captured by some soldiers, Encolpio is defeated by the Minotaur in his mythological labyrinth. The young man's life is spared when he literally talks the Minotaur out of slaying him, in a scene which is both post-modern and subtly comical. But a new humiliation is in store for Encolpio, which has him set off looking for the sorceress Enotea. Her story is told in flashback. Yet again, the prudish and faint of heart will not find the scenes of a cursed woman literally "giving birth" to fire through her vagina as their cup of tea! Though admittedly unsavoury, I also find such elements to be archetypically symbolic, and ultimately fascinating.

After visiting Enotea, Encolpio witnesses the killing of his friend Ascilto. Desperately upset, Encolpio decides to set sail for Africa on a merchant ship owned by the once-poor and bitter old poet Eumolpo, now as filthy rich and decadent as Trimalcione, whom he had once criticised for his parvenu vulgarity. When the old poet dies, he leaves a testament stating that whoever will eat his corpse will have a share of his wealth - basically, inheritance by cannibalism! Encolpio refuses the deal, while a group of greedy Roman dignitaries are shown chewing on what must obviously be the dead poet's tough old flesh, looking like so many fat cows chewing on their cuds. If a satire of a stagnant and greedy society was ever more potent and cutting than this, I would really like to hear about it!

Fellini himself defined this movie as being "Science fiction of the past". The movie's complete and intentional artifice, its occasionally obscure symbolism and gallery of grotesque portraits and strident soundtrack may not be everyone's thing. What is especially unsettling about Satyricon is that the viewer is led into a realm in which you have no idea what boundaries might be crossed. That's exactly why this is a perfect portrayal of an epoch of complete moral decadence - it drags the viewer into the exact same realm of uncertainty that the characters experience.

"Satyricon" studies ancient Rome of the first century, and is virtually plot less. The images drive the movie, not the story and characters, and the movie is essentially a montage of unrelated scenes. Cinematography and art direction are wonderful and the film is truly the feast for eyes. Its beauty comes from El Fayum portraits, wall paintings (frescos) and mosaics from Rome and Pompeii. The problem with Satyricon is that IMO Fellini himself did not like it very much. He seems to be a remote observer in that gorgeous but empty, soulless, decadence world of Nero's Rome. Two main characters that connect unrelated events are so insignificant, dull, and futile that they only take a screen time from the magnificent images which are the main attractions of "Satyricon". Even those images cannot safe Satyricon from being just a glorious illustration to an ancient book.

"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.

I prefer more " Fellini's Roma" – as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart and magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the only main character of Maestro Fellini's very personal film.

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.

This is by far not the best film I've ever seen, but it is probably the most important film I've ever seen. I saw it for the first time when it came out in 69, when I was 16. Before then, I was only marginally interested in films. Something to while away the time. And then I saw Satyricon. And life has never been the same ever since. All of a sudden I realised that film was more than simply recording images, all of a sudden it dawned on me that cinema could be art. Now, maybe Satyricon isn't great art, but to me at that time it was overwhelming. I'm sure other films have had this same catalytic effect on other people. Satyricon got me hooked on film, and I never looked back. I saw the film again about 10 years ago. I was amazed how it was still capable of exiting me. In spite of its wooden acting, its cardboard backgrounds, the unsynchronized lip movements this is amazing movie magic.

Free is the word here in Fellini - Satyricon, adapted from the ancient book by Petronius that is considered to be the first novel ever written. However, only fragments remain, and Fellini made a wise choice in creating the film to move forward as the book does. The plot is told in episodes, where characters move from one scene to another without explanation, where things change and there really is no reason for anyone to do anything.

Yet, in that sense, Fellini captured what Ancient Rome was all about. These people are morally and spiritually hopeless; they feel life is so short that there is no reason to attempt to have what would be considered a "normal" life, so essentially anything goes. This mostly explains the ideas of rampant sexuality, human sacrifices and bloody violence as entertainment. These are the underworld elements of a civilization on the brink of destruction from the inside out, where life is cheap.

Despite this morbid subject, Fellini is able to create such a vivid and wild visual style, that it is arresting no matter what the actors are doing in the shot. His use of bright colors on sets and costumes creates a feeling of excitement and joy even if it is a disturbing sequence. I really cannot recommend anyone to watch it despite its cinematic beauty, but if you appreciate cinema as more than just entertainment perhaps it would be worth your time. I have heard this film called a masterpiece while others think its deplorable and depraved. It's actually both, but it is total Fellini.

I checked this one out of the local library, and being my first experience with Fellini, I wasn't sure what to expect. Let's just say that the chances of me sitting through this one again are slim to none. I've seen my fair share of art films from the late 60s and early 70s, but this one takes the cake. The best way to sum up the plot is this: two friends fight for the love of a 12 year-old boy. If this hasn't scared you off yet, it gets worse, all the way to one of the friends (did I mention that these were guys) getting "married" to some freaky old Roman soldier, and the narrative continues to get more and more bizarre until it finally stops. That's right; stops cold because the end of the story has not survived the ravages of time. If you want to watch a movie with subtitles, or a Fellini movie for that matter, skip this one and stick with his more mainstream fare, like Fred & Ginger.

(1972) As far as plots go, movies differ. Some have obvious plots that have been done repeatedly in the history of film/literature culture. You know how the thing is going to end in the first five min. Others have plots that are there, but one has to watch the movie five times before understanding it all. Some do not have plots and everyone knows it, in which case it better have something else that is damn well done! Then comes along a movie, teetering on the thin line of questionable success where one can not tell whether there is a plot or not. If, while watching Satyricon you find yourself wandering whether it is going to wrap up finally into an understandable conclusion after which you can satisfactorily murmur `ahh yes, now I got it'. Well, in the end there is no such luck, sorry lads and lasses. Of the plot the one thing I could gather is that it is the journey of the main character who is searching for something, or some one? Very hard to figure out. It starts out as a conflict between one Greek lad and another who both have unbegotton lust of a younger lad then themselves. The lad ends up choosing one over the other, or something of that strange sort. The other goes off, into something like a whorehouse, or something. The whole thing is bathed in color of unnatural hue. But, I degrees., To get back to the supposed half invisible story line, the supposed main character goes off on a journey of many naked breasted strange looking ladies. The secondary characters all come in and disappear throughout the story. One really has to view this more as a surreal world with little scenes and parts that are not really connected by any great spine, because otherwise one is to be lost for sure. Over all it has the flow of an acid trip with some really pretty boys strange kings (or was there just one) and strange looking women! There is no doubt that there are many subtle points to be made, but it may not at first be clear what they are. Ultimately, if there is any sort of plot it probably revolves around a young man trying to find himself (or his sexuality) though different occurrences.

Fellini called his "Satyricon" a science fiction film projected into the past. His expressive portrait of ancient Rome is a richly ornamented fresco of contrasts; variations within a select kaleidoscope of opposites related to the sacred, the pure, the just, and the beautiful.

Reportedly a free adaptation of the now fragmentary writings of Petronius, the film also makes fleeting references to various scattered works and myths of antiquity. Even the language is a blend of various dialects and accents, effectively brewed together into a type of "primordial soup."

The film features a young man named Encolpio and his sometime friend Ascilto; both of whom seem to prefer participatory experience as a means to finding meaning in life while primarily disregarding status, power and possessions. Contrasting some of the film's more serene scenes with those of unrest and discord, patterns supportive of a life lived from a similar experiential perspective begin to emerge. Some examples are as follows:

During the "Death to the Classics" scene, the poet Eumolpo says that the arts have declined because the desire for "virtue" has been lost. Dialectical discussion and philosophy have been replaced with drinking, vice and monetary greed, thus preventing further creation of works of art at the same pinnacle of excellence as the classics.

Later when Eumolpo and Encolpio recline in the open field encased in an early morning mist, the elderly poet bequeaths to Encolpio a series of "natural" phenomena; among them mountains, rivers, clouds, love, tears, joy, sound, song and the voices of man...

During the "Matron of Ephesus" scene, a young woman mourning her deceased husband by starving to death in a cave has her chalk white face returned to its natural radiance after accepting the embrace of a handsome soldier. The moral being "...better to hang a 'dead' husband than to lose a 'living' lover..."

A politically doomed and suicidal married couple free their slaves whereupon a reference is made to the "sacred" earth. Their children are sent away to a place free from tyranny which will be "beautiful." Later, Encolpio and Ascilto arrive at the couple's elegant home and enjoy a night of revelry during which Encolpio quotes the "poet" as having said "...as for me I have always lived to enjoy the present moment as if it were the last sunrise..."

The tale of the beautiful Enotea and her subsequent punishment after she tricked the wizard who had professed his love for her seems to be a warning to remain "true" to expressions of affection.

Following what appears to be his final corruption after having abandoned his idealistic philosophy, Eumolpo proposes an interesting last will and testament. Those wishing to inherit a part of his worldly fortune are asked to devour his remains. Reflecting the hippie generation's symbolic scorn of rampant materialism during the shooting of this film, Encolpio and his friends smile and turn away, heading onward toward a new adventure.

The scenes of discord in the film appear to reflect issues related to social and political methods of enforced control over others. For example, during the banquet of Trimalcione, his sycophants eat, laugh, chant, dance, perform and throw objects on cue. While a captive at sea, Encolpio is made an object of entertainment for the pirate Lica. Later he is forced to battle a huge "minotaur' for the entertainment of a proconsul and his puppet court during the "gladiator prank" sequence.

Fellini makes strong use of colour symbolism in "Satyricon." The film opens in what appears to be a large Roman steam bath. There is the occasional sound of water dripping, and in Encolpio's tenement a seemingly wealthy group of party goers arrive on a small boat in the water, perhaps ready to go "slumming" with the poor. There is also a bluish tint to many of these early scenes as if they were being viewed through water. Later, during Trimalcione's feast, a flame red lens filter appears to overshadow the initial candle lit display giving the impression of an envelopment of fire. During the outdoor scenes on Lica's boat, the sound of the wind is recurrent and a blitz of snow appears providing a possible reference to the air element. Near the end of the film, Encolpio enters a maze by sliding in the dirt down a hillside. Following his battle with the minotaur, a dust storm blows as he attempts to make love with Arianna. Later, when he visits the elderly Enotea, she lets dirt fall from her clenched fists as if giving a silent reference to the earth element.

There are also many references to the supernatural and paranormal. Eyes stare into the camera as if to give reference to phantoms from antiquity looking at those presently alive as if to question. While Encolpio and Eumolpo have their discussion in the art gallery, a two tiered galley of soundless faces inexplicably passes by like unknown entities observing the men's conversation through a hole in the wall. There is a curious space-like object on the deck of Lica's ship. In addition, a momentary glimpse of supernatural visionary lights appear during the abduction of the "mystical" hermaphrodite who subsequently dies after having been exposed to the "light" of day. The film also presents a recurring symbolism of carved and imprinted heads eventually given great emphasis with Lica's startling decapitation. Perhaps the question is, has society become too obsessed with the intellect at the expense of the heart and the inherent value of the individual person? Perhaps not so for Fellini, as the entire film is intensely alive with a glorious blend of color; each face, each person, in Fellini's words, serving as an integral part of his artwork on film.

Finally, like the eternal wheel and his initial greeting, Encolpio's farewell is presented in front of a stone background and he is interrupted in mid sentence giving ....

Although this is clearly not one of Fellini's best rated movies, "Satyricon" is a fantastic modern science-fiction drama that is certainly worth seeing. It is true that the story lacks a red line, a plot that clearly interconnects each scene or scenario. However, if one watches it carefully enough and with an open mind, there is a story-line and character development in it. It is the life passage of a young man (Encolpius) and his friend and antagonist (Ascyltus), former gladiators who were taken to a foreign island and undergo diverse colorful, partly erotic adventures in dream-like sequences and images. You will find action in each scene but, more than that, Fellini is probably the only director who has managed, with this film, to create an understanding of what life in ancient Rome MAY have been like for the lower and middle-class ordinary civilians. Far from the bombastic installations as we know them from DeMille's monumental films, this is an abstract piece of art that deserves to be called a masterpiece that leaves room for interpretation and speculation about Petronius' ancient novel.

"Satyricon" is among the weirdest and most colorful, larger-than-life movies I've ever seen, along with Erasurehead, Erendira, Santa sangre, Naked lunch... If you don't like these, don't even try "Satyricon".

On one hand, its many flaws are rather upsetting. The out-of-sync lipping (bad post-sync), the fact that the movie neither really tells a story nor evocates sensible moral or philosophical concepts... so one may say it's actually a dull movie. The violence in this movie doesn't seem to make real sense, neither does the homosexuality, neither does the "romanian decadence" portrait.

On the other hand, the scenography, the sets, the costumes and makup are among the most dazzling ones you'll ever see in cinema, and the cinematography... well... maybe the BEST one you'll ever see. I can't think of any another movie able to compete with "Satyricon"'s mindblowing cinematography. Each scene is a terrific picture, with several visual layers, extraordinary lights and focuses, a lot of invention, of visual flair, and the overall technical mastery is stunning.

The result is something mesmerizing for some, totally disgusting for others. I have to say I'm more on the mesmerized side, because I was mainly focused on the visual/meditative aspects of the movie, not on the narrative ones.

If you're really into cinema, I mean as an artistic media more than as entertainment, you MUST see "Satyricon", as it's to my sense the most *visually* outstanding movie ever made. Be prepared for some disappointment about the movie as a whole, though...

Ancient Rome has never looked more interesting. Another triumph from Fellini, despite paper thin characters.

I've voted 8 out of 10 for Fellini Satyricon, but I can imagine that a few people may find that to be an overly indulgent grade. Actually, I know that a few people will feel that way -- I've shown it to several friends, and they all agree it looks beautiful and manages to amuse on numerous occasions. But they don't get much more out of it. That's too bad for them. Aaaw yeah.

As Vincent Canby said in his review, from 1970 in the New York Times, 'Fellini Satyricon is its own justification'. This movie exists purely to engage on an aesthetic level. The surrealism, the carnival-of-life atmosphere, the monumental pageantry, the visual juxtaposition of beauty and ugliness, and the black humour are all the film possesses and are all it requires. I believe that Fellini's intention with this film was simply to entertain. And he was a master entertainer, no doubt.

Don't expect much in the way of characterisation, of complex plot developments, or of nifty moral expression. This is a film that looks and sounds beautiful, and it manages to hold your interest (or mine anyway, I can't speak for everyone) for two brief hours by doing just that. Fellini = Godlike genius.

Oh, me!... Oh, my!... Satyricon is, without question, one of those utterly grotesque and highly subjective films that I think rightly warrants psychoanalysis. It really does.

Satyricon is something of a glutton's insatiable romp down "Depravity Lane". And, believe me, it's not a pleasant stroll (unless, of course, you happen to be a totally depraved glutton for punishment).

Set in Imperial Rome during that mighty reign of Nero (in 60 AD), Satyricon is a literal madhouse of non-stop "WTF?" moments that will either deliver great pleasure or else sicken you with its outright repulsiveness.

Filled to overflowing with ghastly-looking characters, homosexual overtones, torture and cruelty, Satyricon certainly didn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.

Filmed in 1969, Satyricon was directed (with an obvious cynical glee) by Federico Fellini.

Personally, I found this film's twisted story of ancient times to be quite an ugly movie-experience that, regardless of its truly weird and bizarre nature, wore out its welcome (and its novelty) within its first 30 minutes.