as an ancient movie fan and i had heard much about the controversial movie caligula assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. i decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. i sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. the beginning quotation from the new testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me. why to entail a sentence from the gospel by mark in the movie about pagan rome. but the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (caligula and drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. the music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. yet and the negative feelings raised in me quite soon and particularly at the death of tiberius. the cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. however and it was not that horrific to the middle. during the second half of the film and i felt as if i watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. in the end and i said to myself this is one of the movies that one may really hate . i am aware that a movie may be controversial but i had never expected that caligula would go that far in removing all limits of taste. i hate this film due to many reasons and but particularly one. caligula does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be) and but bob guccione and the director and the founder of penthouse pornographic magazine and aims at combining film art with porn. that is and i think and the most serious matter the film may be accused of. movie is an art that should be reigned by taste and by message and by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. caligula shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked and decadent manner. some scenes are so disgusting that i do not think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. some say that the rome under caligula reign was so brutal. yes and it is true. corruption bloomed at that time and various sexual deviances were preferable to roman citizens. yet and i do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. i believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies. huge historical mistakes represent the screenplay by gore vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. it is noticeable and for instance and with the figure of proculus (donato placido) and a historic roman senator. yet and the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. moreover and livia was not proculus wife raped by caesar on her wedding. what lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence. another example of historical travesty is the figure of caesonia portrayed by helen mirren. she is presented as caligula wife together with drusilla and his sister. in fact and caligula married caesonia long after the death of his sister. the sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. i also hated the moment with the killing machine  a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts. technical aspect and cast represent from the technical point of view and the film is nothing special. the cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. yet and the only strong point of the movie are the performances and particularly the one by malcolm mcdowall as caligula. he does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. mcdowall raises the value of the film. if everything bothers you in caligula and you may at least admire his performance. i also fancied helen mirren as caesonia and teresa ann savoy as drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by suetonius that caligula made love to his sister). sir john gielgud as nerva and peter otoole as old tiberius are also memorable. otoole does his finest piece of acting in the capri grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. yes and i admit that the only thing i like about caligula are the performances. therefore and i do not rate the movie negative . lame continuity represent the historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. let us analyze just the beginning represent caligula comes to capri grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old tiberius. then and after about 15 minutes and the action moves to rome where a black bird near drusilla and caligula bed constitutes a bad omen. and immediately the characters are again in capri where nerva (john gielgud) is dying. all in all and i do not recommend to see caligula to anyone. if you want to know the story and read robert graves gorgeous novel i and claudius and claudius the god or watch herbert wise mini series with the magnificent performance by derek jacobi. caligula is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. it is and in its most part and a porn movie that should never be called an epic. there are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people taste of beauty and there are movies that are average entertainment while yet they have something to offer and there are movies that show extreme violence while yet they still convey some moral and there are and however and movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people minds and caligula unfortunately belongs to the latest group. 
as an ancient movie fan and i had heard much about the controversial movie caligula assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. i decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. i sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. the beginning quotation from the new testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me. why to entail a sentence from the gospel by mark in the movie about pagan rome. but the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (caligula and drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. the music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. yet and the negative feelings raised in me quite soon and particularly at the death of tiberius. the cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. however and it was not that horrific to the middle. during the second half of the film and i felt as if i watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. in the end and i said to myself this is one of the movies that one may really hate . i am aware that a movie may be controversial but i had never expected that caligula would go that far in removing all limits of taste. i hate this film due to many reasons and but particularly one. caligula does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be) and but bob guccione and the director and the founder of penthouse pornographic magazine and aims at combining film art with porn. that is and i think and the most serious matter the film may be accused of. movie is an art that should be reigned by taste and by message and by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. caligula shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked and decadent manner. some scenes are so disgusting that i do not think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. some say that the rome under caligula reign was so brutal. yes and it is true. corruption bloomed at that time and various sexual deviances were preferable to roman citizens. yet and i do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. i believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies. huge historical mistakes represent the screenplay by gore vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. it is noticeable and for instance and with the figure of proculus (donato placido) and a historic roman senator. yet and the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. moreover and livia was not proculus wife raped by caesar on her wedding. what lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence. another example of historical travesty is the figure of caesonia portrayed by helen mirren. she is presented as caligula wife together with drusilla and his sister. in fact and caligula married caesonia long after the death of his sister. the sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. i also hated the moment with the killing machine  a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts. technical aspect and cast represent from the technical point of view and the film is nothing special. the cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. yet and the only strong point of the movie are the performances and particularly the one by malcolm mcdowall as caligula. he does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. mcdowall raises the value of the film. if everything bothers you in caligula and you may at least admire his performance. i also fancied helen mirren as caesonia and teresa ann savoy as drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by suetonius that caligula made love to his sister). sir john gielgud as nerva and peter otoole as old tiberius are also memorable. otoole does his finest piece of acting in the capri grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. yes and i admit that the only thing i like about caligula are the performances. therefore and i do not rate the movie negative . lame continuity represent the historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. let us analyze just the beginning represent caligula comes to capri grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old tiberius. then and after about 15 minutes and the action moves to rome where a black bird near drusilla and caligula bed constitutes a bad omen. and immediately the characters are again in capri where nerva (john gielgud) is dying. all in all and i do not recommend to see caligula to anyone. if you want to know the story and read robert graves gorgeous novel i and claudius and claudius the god or watch herbert wise mini series with the magnificent performance by derek jacobi. caligula is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. it is and in its most part and a porn movie that should never be called an epic. there are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people taste of beauty and there are movies that are average entertainment while yet they have something to offer and there are movies that show extreme violence while yet they still convey some moral and there are and however and movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people minds and caligula unfortunately belongs to the latest group. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
