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).

[Q]: The importance of not being too earnest... . I really wanted to like this film.  It hurts not to recommend it, because the subject matter is extraordinary and compelling: a once-in-a-lifetime night in American theater that happened during the Great Depression.  And Tim Robbins' heart is in the right place.  But great intentions don't make a great film, and unfortunately, that's the case here.  Robbins tries to do a multiple-character loose plot that makes one think of Robert Altman.  In fact, watching Cradle Will Rock, you realize just how good Altman is, because he makes this sort of thing look so effortless (so much so that detractors have often accused him of "not really directing" his pictures).  Well, to quote the late senator Lloyd Bentsen: Tim Robbins, you're no Bob Altman.    The film has an impressive cast list.  Unfortunately, almost everyone overacts (or is overdirected by Robbins, since these actors have turned in other fine performances).  Particular violators are Cary Ewles as John Houseman and Angus Macfadyen as Orson Welles.  Both seem to channel Nathan Lane in their over-the-top elocution and both as directed by Robbins turn every showbiz cliche in the book, such as bickering pettily and then, when they reach an agreement over something, jumping up and down and shouting "Eureka!" while hugging.  Other hams include Ruben Blades as painter Diego Rivera and, surprisingly, the normally spot-on Susan Sarandon as Mussolini's art-living mistress.  (With her over-bearing accent she sounds more like Count Dracula's mistress.)  Other cliched characters include doe-eyed Emily Watson as a shy waif who never gets a break in life until, of course, the last scene.    There's also a strange sideplot involving Bill Murray (okay, he does not overact; *can* Bill Murray overact?) as a washed-up ventriloquist.  This started off promising, with him attending secret meetings sponsored by alienated conservatives who see the times changing in ways that make them uncomfortable, but it really went nowhere in my opinion.  Conversly, the third (third!) major plotline, about Nelson Rockefeller commissioning Rivera to paint a mural in his new building, went predictably where we'd expect, and was way too drawn out in the film's ending.  Oddly, for a screenplay that cried out for lots of oddball, nonconformist characters, no lines and little face time are given Corina Katt Ayala as Frida Kahlo--who in real life was quite a character who could have been put to better use here.  Also underused is the always-reliable Bob Balaban.  Hank Azaria is okay as the playwright, but the whole surreal bits that happen whenever he has a scene to write or perform strike me as Robbins trying to be arty and "profound."    The one standout performance is by Cherry Jones, wonderful as Hallie Flanagan.  Her warm and very natural performance just throws into high relief how forced and phony most of the rest of the cast is.  Even here, though, Robbins misses the point.  The high moment comes when Balaban shakes her into reality after the Congressional hearings and tells her "It's over."  That could have been the beginning of a big dramatic scene, but Robbins glosses over it for a phony and smug mock-interrogation in the court chambers--preaching to us like we're third graders who can't be trusted to figure it out ourselves.  Similarly, the walk down the street to the second theater that begins the climax could have been a big dramatic moment--what will be the fate of this controversial play, and the actors who have rehearsed it for months?  Instead Robbins gives us a victory dance before the victory--a parade of jugglers, acrobats and cha-cha dancers set to comical klezmer music that undermines what he's just set up.  We feel a satisfaction and--I hate to keep using this word but it's true--smugness, before the big night even happens.  And I'll leave it to you to decide the effectiveness--and the ultimate meaning--of the very last shot.  I still haven't decided if it works, but it was a bold idea.    Another big part of what sinks this movie is the hammy score.  It may seem piddling to talk about background music, but it really breaks the movie.  The music was done by David Robbins--Tim's brother.  Nepotism rears its ugly head.  Robbins' music is usually inappropriate--slapstick and overly broad like the rest of the film's elements, as though Robbins doesn't trust us to follow him and feels he has to drive home his message with power tools.  Yet despite the constant heavy-handedness, Cradle Will Rock never finds its tone--part history lesson, part "serious drama," part broadsided "comedy," it can't ultimately decide if it wants to hit you in the head with a hammer or in the face with a pie.  It tries both by the end, and neither works.    Ultimately, I felt like Robbins couldn't get a distance from his material.  He lectures us to the point that the word MESSAGE in bright red practically flashes on the screen.  Understatement is not in his bag of tricks.  It's not that I disagree with much of what he has to say, but he fairly hits you over the head with it, and acts as though he's the first one to show you upper-class hypocracy.  The one really interesting plot thread--about how the Hallie Flanagans of the world were called before the House UnAmerican Committee to defend their loyalty while the Hearsts of America appeased dictators by buying art from them (and thereby financing their fascism)--is the highlight of the film.  But even here Robbins stages a garish costume party to drive home the point and again whips out the power tools.  Tim, we get it.    Despite this negative review, the film might be interesting to see just for the fascinating history lesson that it is.  Or you could go online or to a library and find some nonfiction material on the subject matter.  I read somewhere that originally none other than Orson Welles himself was set to make this film, but the deal never got off the ground and then he died.  That's too bad.  I would like to have seen what he could have done with this material.  As it is, Robbins is too close to it--too loud, too preachy, too self-righteous--to pull it off.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Bad, just plain bad. . Spoilers ahead:  I am not hard to please when it comes to horror movies, and totally enjoy a good B flick. But I have to say that this one was just terrible. There's really no plot and even though you expect the charaters to do some silly stuff like go into creepy houses or whatever, I just couldn't believe how stupid the main character really was!!  How do you continue to hang out at that rest stop when the guy keeps coming back to mess with you? I mean come on!!! Breaking into the rangers office on site, no less, and getting drunk...all the while waiting for the phycho to come back and have another go at her? Then missing every possible opportunity to kill the psycho. Was no one else shouting at the screen "Grab the cop's gun and shoot the psycho!" as they watched him stroll by them to tow his motorbike.   And running infront of the truck, in the headlights... There was forest all around her and she never once went and hid, just hung out inside that disgusting bathroom. A sitting duck that deserved to be put out of it's misery in my opinion.  No, it was simply unbelievable and I was relieved when the credits rolled. So glad I didn't actually pay the rental fee on this one
[A]: NEG


[Q]: I had no idea . Wow! I had no idea that people could be so close-minded and prejudiced--and about a movie for crying out loud! I mean people on here are saying that they would never date a person just because he/she liked this movie. And this from a reviewer who called this movie racist--talk about hypocrite!    Quite frankly, I thought this movie was hilarious. The acting is supposed to be life-less. The movie is supposed to be uneventful. But if you pay attention to the nuances, the slight glances, you might understand a bit more. For instance, when Napoleon is carrying the chickens to their new cages and he puts them in, he does so with the utmost care and then, he looks around at the chaos and filth that these chickens are forced to live and runs from the coop at top speed. For all the dirt and aggravation of working on the chicken farm he gets paid $1 an hour. Now who can't think of other people in our country who have to deal with that in a real-life scenario?    I am not going to get philosophical about the themes of this movie because in my opinion you either get this movie or you don't, either you are a literal or figurative thinker, either you can enjoy things that have a circular pattern or you are more linear. The point is you don't HAVE to like this movie. No one is forcing you to jump up and down with glee! You also don't need to be so spiteful to those of us who do like it. Liking this movie does not mean I don't like other more classic/mainstream comedies. Young Frankenstein, The Birdcage, The Producers, The Wedding Singer etc are all great movies and great comedies. Napoleon Dynamite is just one more that SOME people in enjoy. So lighten up
[A]:
POS