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]: An Awful Adaptation . The costumes were great....but this movie did no justice to the novel.  "Cousin Bette" the novel is excellent , "Cousin Bette" the movie, is dreadful.  I understand some changes are necessary when a novel is adapted into a movie, but these changes were awful and they took something very important (the Baroness) away from the story...    If you haven't read the novel, you will probably find this movie to be decent.  If you have read the novel, be prepared to be very disappointed
[A]: NEG


[Q]: deep focus . I've taught this film in colleges for thirty-plus years.  Even back at the earliest screenings, traditional-aged freshmen had trouble with it (a) because it was in b&w, and (b) because the dimensional characters didn't telegraph plot advancement but instead used irony, wit, or assumptions that would later be proven wrong by subsequent events.    The first of these objections stunned me when they couldn't appreciate Gene Tierney descending the stairs to seduce "Larry" in a gown relegated to grays.  The second objection (young auduence confusion) just made me sad about the impact of television ... but you already know that story.  As with Hollywood's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, released in during the same general period, I personally appreciate the "epic scope" of the narrative, enhanced by remarkable set direction detail.  And I appreciate even more the depth-of-focus photography in both of these films, which enriches viewing by sharp images at several planes of action within the frame.  It's a story well-told at the visual level.  I've read complaints about Tyrone Power's "dated" acting in this performance, NIGHTMARE ALLEY, etc.  But again, I suspect this is from a generation more comfortable with MTV editing than with theatre as an entertainment criterion.  Power is given a series of difficult monologues to recite about uncinematic spiritual/ philosophical themes, and he pulls each off brilliantly.  As with Olivier's opening scene in RICHARD III, it's interesting to watch how these monologues have been directed to use a pacing movement of the actor within the frame as a "paragraphing" punctuation.  The lengthy, uninterrupted takes and consequent fluidity of camera movement within these shots not only enhances the impact of the monologues but also makes sly commentary on characters/ themes as continuous camera includes other characters in medium close-ups.  Herbert Marshall's Maugham is interesting and underplayed almost as masterfully as Cedrick Hardwicke's performance of "goodness personified" in ROPE.  The close-ups of "Maugham's" eyes to communicate ironic plot points may seem obtrusive, but they're true to Maugham's voice in the novel.    Further, they emphasize the ill-advised decision to omit this narrator's perspective in Murray's hapless remake.  That later film fails in no small part because the female characters are virtually indistinguishable visually, and because the studio (which only made the film to entice Murray to make GHOSTBUSTERS II) invested no interest in producing a good movie script.  Pity, since Murray could have done okay.  Two less successful scenes in the 40s version are the "Baby!" hospital melodrama and the ashram Jehovah sequences (not including the remarkably visual spiritual moment in the mountains).  But the supporting cast remains superb throughout--especially the bracing comedy of Webb and Lancaster, and the moving subtlety of John Payne and Lucille Watson.    Tierney's richest moments are linked to the plot:  "That's all right, Larry.  It might be less than a year"; the wedding announcement over the phone; the camera-narrated scene where Isabel "seduces" Larry's fiancee; and, of course, the climax with Larry at the end.  And, by the way, she's as gorgeous as Tyrone Power!    How much more value can one expect from an entertainment that succeeds so well with complex, mature themes of spiritual redemption in a society of capitalist myopia?
[A]: POS


[Q]: It had some good moments, but was mostly boring..... . I am a Sci-Fi / Space geek so this movie seemed right up my alley.  The cast was solid, the director has talent, and the story is a true story so all pretty much went well...right?  Nope.    This was a pretty dull film with very little believable suspense. The formula kept repeating over and over: Something goes wrong + Houston advises + Astronauts do something = All is well.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Boring, VERY boring. I never once flet any real tension except for the initial "problem" which obviously was not THAT bad because everything went well in the end.      The problem is that all of the "issues" the men faced were handled so matter-of-factly.  Rarely did anyone seem rushed or panicked.... it was just yeah, attach this tube to this tube and magically everything will be OK.  I never felt that the astronauts were really threatened, maybe a few times, but only for a minute or two.  Some reviews claim that this movie was tense and riveting.... how so I must ask?  Nothing really happened.  It was not emotional at all since the "struggles" of the men were so poorly portrayed.  To each his own I guess, but 4 1/2 stars?  Geeez, just because Tom Hanks is in it does not make the movie good follks!    The family interactions were pretty standard: Crying wife, kids asking questions, annoying media attention, etc, etc.  Yeah, I could feel for the characters to some extent, but again, this movie needed a LOT more real tension and panic to be meaningful.    I will say that the launch scene was excellent and very cool, so were some of the space shots but even those were fake with noise and Star-Trekkish special effects.    Too bad, I had high hopes for this film but was completely disappointed and bored.    NOT recommended
[A]:
NEG