In this task, you are given product reviews about dvds. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive(the reviewer is satisfied) or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative(the reviewer is not satisfied).
--------
Question: Deceiving and Insubstantial . After seening and reviewing Fahrenhyte 9/11, I chanced upon this film and watched it.  It is deceiving and insubstantial.  As the #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, including most of the important books about national security, 9/11, oil, and terrorism, I have to state there are exactly TWO points of truth in this shallow stupid little film:     1) the photo of Bush reading a book upside down was a fabrication, Bush was actually listening.    2) Clinton blew it.  Correct. Madeline Albright will go down in history for refusing to let her staff report terrorism honestly, and Tony Lake will go down in history for failing to get it right.  It bears mention that then Commandant of the Marine Corps Al Gray did get it right, in his article "Global Intelligence Challenges of the 1990's" published in the fall of 1988, but no one wanted to listen.    I am impressed by the teacher of color who was in charge of the classroom that day, recounting how she felt Bush was truly presidential, and wise not to add to the panic by rushing out of the room.  Absolutely.  Good point.    The rest of this extreme rightist propaganda tract is totally disconnected from reality and the truth.  The movie claims that Gore lost because of Nader, and completely ignores the hard documented proof that the Florida leeadership acted to disenfranchise over 35,000 people of color, one reason that the Bush family was so confident, in advance, of victory in  Florida.  This trashy film fails to address the many angry Representatives and the inert Senate, including Gore, who failed to use the power of Congress to redress the impeachable wrong done to America in 2000 (and again, this time in Ohio, in 2004).    Anything that features snap-shots of Ann Coulter is very likely to be loosely related to the truth, reality, or the public interest.    I am glad I watched this film, because it reconfirms my gravest fears--the extreme right in America now has a propaganda machine more powerful that Hitler's, and a brainwashed following more lethal than the Hilter Youth.  This is seriously troubing stuff.    I gave Moore four stars, one star down for being too glib by half.  That's an honest assessment.  This shallow little movie gets two stars, and both of those are for reflecting what is in the small minds of the nutty right

Answer: NEG


Question: don't be &quot;con&quot; vinced into watching this . To be honest with you I thought the movie was really bad. the acting was ok but the only good part about the movie was that ricky (Rodney Eastman) was in the movie. (for about 5 mins) but i would not suggest renting this movie and waisting 4 dollars

Answer: NEG


Question: One of the most overrated films of all time. . The best thing about this tiresome mess is the stunning cinematography and Scorsese's knowledge of New York personalities. But the film utterly fails to capture the magnetism of boxing in its heyday, or provide a fascinating insight into a driven contender from the streets.    From the all-too-obvious movie references to the overweening sentimentality, Scorsese tries to make an Elia Kazan-esque masterpiece and fails miserably. DeNiro's performance as LaMotta is a lot of what we would see from him in later years --monomaniacal mumbling, zero charisma; an almost self-congratulatory exercise in the excesses of dramaturgy.    Who was Jake La Motta? Why was he this way? What was his background? What did he hope to achieve? On the Criterion Laserdisc of this film, La Motta himself in three minutes gives more insight into these things than Scorsese and Schrader's drama does in over two hours. To me, that's BAD filmaking.    I have heard from film snobs that much of Raging Bull's fascination lies in the significance it holds in the oevre of Scorsese. He had just failed miserably with New York, New York and this was almost a religious purging of his soul. I suppose if you want to read into it, be my guest. I consider that self-absorption. I have also heard the patronizing "it's funny" angle regarding LaMotta. I do not think this was Scorsese's intention and I do not find the serious issue of spousal abuse very funny

Answer:
NEG