it a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. but when you see a noble actor like sir john gielgud surrounded by naked and copulating couples that just what you will want to do. add to that peter otoole as syphilis ridden emperor tiberius and malcolm mcdowell sticking his finger up a male victim anus and and you begin to appreciate that caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick or outrageous films. the film charts the life of notorious roman emperor caligula (mcdowell) and a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters and decapitations and betrayals and murders and incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes. although caligula was totally mad in real life and and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not and the film is still inexcusable filth. the sex in the film isn not used as one aspect in a multi layered story  the sex is the story. after a while and all the nudity and hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. the performances are totally undisciplined and particularly mcdowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild eyed posturing. otoole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he in it purely for the money. ). rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director consent during post production and but in truth there isn not a single minute in caligula that is dignified or well made. it is doubtful that this amount of time and talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again and so in that sense caligula is a one of a kind experience. on the other hand and it so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is one of a kind is a blessing in disguise. 
it a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. but when you see a noble actor like sir john gielgud surrounded by naked and copulating couples that just what you will want to do. add to that peter otoole as syphilis ridden emperor tiberius and malcolm mcdowell sticking his finger up a male victim anus and and you begin to appreciate that caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick or outrageous films. the film charts the life of notorious roman emperor caligula (mcdowell) and a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters and decapitations and betrayals and murders and incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes. although caligula was totally mad in real life and and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not and the film is still inexcusable filth. the sex in the film isn not used as one aspect in a multi layered story  the sex is the story. after a while and all the nudity and hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. the performances are totally undisciplined and particularly mcdowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild eyed posturing. otoole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he in it purely for the money. ). rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director consent during post production and but in truth there isn not a single minute in caligula that is dignified or well made. it is doubtful that this amount of time and talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again and so in that sense caligula is a one of a kind experience. on the other hand and it so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is one of a kind is a blessing in disguise. ---------------------------------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."
