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: Another King Masterpiece Butchered . I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one.     Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.     This film has all the feel of a made-for-tv movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.     That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.     Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.     Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.     They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.     Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.    Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.

Answer: NEG


Question: MASH as great as ever . MASH matured each season, adding more depth to both the performances and script. There has never been as good a TV series, and continues to gain significance as the years pass

Answer: POS


Question: Trey Parker and the gang now show exactly why South Park isn't a kids show. . This movie shows that South Park was never intended to be a kid's show.  When the show was seen through the human eye it was also then known that it wasn't concidered a kid's show.  This movie is outrageous and shows the hilarious side of vulgar language.  Any South Park fan who is offended by vulgar language is used to the show being cencored on TV.  This movie is not for the easilly offended.  Especially for people easily offended to the F word.  This movie is hilarious and extremely outrageous.  On Comedy Central they got away with airing it on TV only by showing it uncencored.  Great film for the South Park fan and the ones not offended buy vulgar language

Answer:
POS