nero as the title of the movie is in germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting roman emperors and lucius domitius ahenobarbus and better known as nero. although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate nero than the amusing but completely fictitious nero peter ustinov played in quo vadis. it still is a major failure. and to those imdb commentators who still believe that sueton and tacitus propaganda is true and please read a book about nero that was published less than 20 years ago. nero did not burn rome and this is proved. he did not murder britannicus. he did not torture and kill and maim for pleasure and he was the first emperor who banned the gladiator fights. the movie still shows a lot of mistakes and errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style and especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing and the palace looking like some villa and the city itself looked like. well like a cheap set. the acting was between good and sub par and the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after nero became emperor to a rushed and bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. so there still is the potential for an epic biography of nero that shows the true nero and who was one of the best emperors who ruled rome and despite the lies of sueton et al. 
nero as the title of the movie is in germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting roman emperors and lucius domitius ahenobarbus and better known as nero. although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate nero than the amusing but completely fictitious nero peter ustinov played in quo vadis. it still is a major failure. and to those imdb commentators who still believe that sueton and tacitus propaganda is true and please read a book about nero that was published less than 20 years ago. nero did not burn rome and this is proved. he did not murder britannicus. he did not torture and kill and maim for pleasure and he was the first emperor who banned the gladiator fights. the movie still shows a lot of mistakes and errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style and especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing and the palace looking like some villa and the city itself looked like. well like a cheap set. the acting was between good and sub par and the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after nero became emperor to a rushed and bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. so there still is the potential for an epic biography of nero that shows the true nero and who was one of the best emperors who ruled rome and despite the lies of sueton et al. ---------------------------------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."
