It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

My favorite chapter was the "fire from her loins" , right near the end. The giant fish walking along the river banks was pretty cool too. The Satyricon by Fellini is a mix of history ( based on Petronius' fragmented, partial work) and an artistic, impressionist work. Lots of topless women running, jumping, standing, walking. Our hero Encolpio, (Martin Potter, a Brit) tells his young lover to choose between him and Ascilto, and when he does, Encolpio sets off on a series of adventures. Very artsy, wacky, silly make-up. Through-out the story, Encoplio runs into both the young lover and Ascilto (Hiram Keller, American, died quite young.), as well as casts of thousands in his adventures. This seems to be a whole lot of Roman history, mixed in with free interpretation by Fellini. Will definitely have to watch this one with the "commentary" turned on next time; may give some insight as to what's really going on. Make up a big bowl of popcorn, because this is over two hours, and covers a lot of ground. Capucine, the French actress is in here... she was big in Hollywood in the 1960s. Fellini was nominated for an Oscar twelve times, and finally won an achievement award in 1993, which also happens to be the year he died. Quite entertaining, if you have the patience. The fact that things are not always spelled out, and it IS artsy-fartsy, will turn off a lot of people.

A bit more coherent that the average Fellini movie. Not that it says much.Starts interestingly enough. For a while I thought the movie might actually have a decent plot. For a brief moment it almost seemed Shakespearean. Then it fell apart.It degenerated into a series of random events, and parallel "stories" (for lack of a better word).So, while having more of a plot than most Fellini movies, this is all very relative.

I'm a fan of Fellini and usually can accept his indulgence and laziness, but this is a step too far. There are some positives to what is essentially an episodic, fantastical and depraved journey across imperial Rome. For example, it looks fantastic and there are genuine moments of beauty, particularly during the opening scenes within Fellini's hellish, claustrophobic, labyrinthine Rome. However, it is ultimately incredibly boring. Appalling characterisation, acting woeful (and embarrassing dubbing throughout) and the storyline nonsensical. With La Dolce Vita, or La Strada, there is enough brilliance to gloss over Fellini's self indulgence. Here, however, it is in the open. The traditional manic laughing characters and overall melodrama become annoying beyond belief, whereas usually I find them charming. Technically, it also has flaws. The editing only adds more confusion to the film's hectic narrative. It's a vision of a nightmare and somewhere in this mess there lies a haunting masterpiece.

It would be nice to think that the Ancient Romans were a lot like us. After all, America's founding fathers looked up to the stern fathers of the Republic far more than they ever did to any so called Judeo-Christian values. We have a "Senate House" on a Capital Hill, and our national bird is more than a little consciously modeled on the symbol of Imperial Rome. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton, when asked, declared that "the greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar." Heady stuff, no? Of course, the real thing was nothing like what we imagine it was. If by some miracle a time machine was invented, and we somehow found ourselves in the Forum some day in , oh, 44 BCE, say, we would be completely baffled by the people around us, their behavior, their language, their modes of dress, their beliefs about the afterlife, etc, etc. They would be, essentially, alien, in far more ways than they would resemble us. So here, in his usual fascinating, over-the-top way, Fellini gives us his own mishmash, hodge-podge version of Rome in the 1st century, scary, alien, bizarre, oddly comical, dehumanizing, and very erotic without being pornographic (Bob Guccione clearly misunderstood the whole point of Satyricon when he stole the "look" of the film for his "Caligula", which failed on so many levels that it isn't even able to pull off "cult" status). It "feels" so right about so many things, even when it veers off into fantastical territory. It brings the vibrant color and vicious thought processes of the pagan world into full focus, allowing us to see, perhaps, why the Christians were so vehement about not wanting anything to do with it, and also, just as likely, just how prudish those same people probably were (sure, poverty is awful, but if you really thought that you wouldn't spend so much more time talking about how sex is an even GREATER evil. . .don't ya think? Priorities, folks, priorities. . .)The story is not really the point. . .suffice it to say that there is a light thread throughout about the adventures of two students, both probably Greeks living in southern Italy, Encolpios and Ascyltos, and their mutual lust for a slave boy, Giton, who leaves Encolpios for Ascyltos, since he has more money. The story is fragmented, as is the surviving text of the original work by Petronius, but there is abduction, shipwreck, bizarre Gods and Godesses roaming about, wise men unable to deal with the damnable times, and several possible morals, or none at all, depending on your viewpoint. It is probably the most "on the money" depiction of the ancient world put to film. . .incoherent, beautiful, and very, very bizarre.