instruction:
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:
Robots - Very Rusty and Out of Date . This was a film I was anticipating becuase of the actors doing the voice over and the special effects.  As far as animated features go this was the biggest dissappointment.  The acting was good but Robin Williams did not receive as much screen time as Ewen McGreagor which meant it wasant as funny as it could have been.  But the major problem was the story.  Yes, it did have a good moral but the rest of the films story was weak, boring at times and just silly.  I would recommend Ice Age or Garfiled: The Movie rather than this film
answer:
NEG


question:
Multi-Cultural View of Domestic Violence . This movie was good, but as usual the book was far better. I think it showed that her husband had some tendencies towards wanting to dominate his wife, which turned into full-blown abuse under the stresses of losing his job & medical license, and returning to Shiite Iran after decades of living in the United States.    I think the book shows that he wasn't this "dream husband" that suddenly turned into a monster. The warning signs were there all along - for example, she met him when he was her physician and he kissed her right on the treatment table - obviously, an inappropriate action.    What was amazing to me is that OTHER AMERICANS in Iran did little to help Betty, saying she needed to submit, what's the problem? etc, while it was the IRANIANS who understood Moody's family history & reached out to help her in a real way - helping her use the phone, finding ways for her to escape the dangerous oppression of her husband, and ultimately smuggling her out of the country.     The movie seems a little overblown, because, well, it's a movie...they dramatize things. I recommend reading the book, too, which is Betty's true story
answer:
POS


question:
the fun is stealthiest of all... . They call it brainless fun, but it's not even fun.  Yes, "Stealth" is that not-rare-enough bad movie that's actually so bad, it's no fun.  It starts out bad from the beginning - with an on-screen title sequence dating this film "In the Near Future", which should trip alarms for anybody whose ever watched an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000".  The heroes of our story - three pilots assigned to fly hyper-tech US fighters called "Talons" - are reluctantly joined by a fourth pilot, a robotic fighter jet called EDI.  Trouble starts immediately when EDI develops an acute case of self-awareness and faster than you can say "I'm sorry Dave, I really can't do that", EDI is ignoring orders and raising all sorts of havoc.  It's hard to get more specific without ruining the plot...because there really isn't any plot.  The story we see on the screen hints at several different plot-ideas that never form into a single story - we have the plot about stopping "Crazy EDI"; the plot about the evil admiral played by Sam Shepard who will do anything he can to keep the lid on EDI when he goes bad; we have Jessica Biel as a fighter pilot running from the bad guys after she's shutdown over North Korea; then we have Josh Lucas as the other Talon pilot whose on the run from some goons who are trying to...Oh, who cares?  None of these plots go anywhere.    BUT WHAT ABOUT THEM EFFEX?? "Stealth" offers us hours of aerial dogfighting in unsurpassed CGI - unsurpassed because the movie demonstrates that there are some things that simply can't be left to computer animation.  Even though they're next generation aircraft, the F/A-37 Talon fighters never convincingly look like any airplanes, and the aerial effects here look little more believable than those done over 20 years ago in "Firefox" or "Deal of the Century", or nowadays on any flight simulator game run on any desktop-PC.  The effects compound the error by maximizing use of "impossible shots" - shots that couldn't be seen by a human perspective, such as those that cut across the sky and directly inside the subject aircraft - it's a clever shot, but not a terrible smart one (they never stop reminding us that these are effects).  It's probably too much effort to explain that even elite fighter pilots don't want to be confused by a flight panel that suddenly starts broadcasting real-time images of a bunch of terrorists sitting down as if for a CNN foto-op, or that none of the pilots come off as even casual aviators.  "Stealth" is one of those mindless movies that effete snobbish reviewers like to blame on teenage boys, but this flick lost a ton of money (stealthy profits) which is only strong proof that the monster audience of mindless boys is itself a delusion of these frustrated critics and studio execs, or even stronger proof that those mindless teenage boys may be smarter than anybody realizes
answer:

NEG