TASK DEFINITION: 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).
PROBLEM: "O" Please!!!!!!! . For me this movie is a painfull thing to watch. I wish that I could give this 0 stars. The infamous fake "O" scene kind of recked true intamacy for me. It may be true that women do this but it is one of the worst kind of lie imaginable.     One of the truths for us guys is that when we are cuddiling with a woman we fanasise that we are with the first girl we fell in love with.     Just FYI.

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: 2 Star Dud . After a man is caught cheating in a poker game a lynch party is formed and the man is murdered.  Soon after the murderers begin dying violent and mysterious deaths.     Dean Martin plays a ramblin' gambler in FIVE CARD STUD, a movie that probably didn't, but certainly could have, pounded the fatal nail into the traditional western before handing the franchise over to the Italians.  Although it sells itself as a mystery/western - who's killing all these gambling varmints, anyhow? - a five-second study of the movie's poster will pretty much shuffle out who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, and who's going to ride into the sunset with Inger Stevens.       I watched this movie the first time years and years ago, back in the knee-britches days.  It's possible some of synapses fired and connected and I somehow, after a generation plus, remembered how the plot - and I use that term loosely - ran.  I doubt it, though.  FIVE CARD STUD doesn't bother itself with keeping an edge to the mystery.  Robert Mitchum plays a gun-toting preacher who opens a church soon after the lynching occurs, Roddy McDowell is an angry young man with a chip on his shoulder.  Katherine Justice plays the shapely tomboy sister of McDowell and Inger Stevens is wasted, again, as a hair-cutting floozie.  Both women, of course, have lips puckered for the six-shootin' gambling man Martin.     This one was pretty excruciating, and it's really tempting to blame it all on the bored, and boring, Martin.  That's probably not fair, though.  The script is murky, the dialogue laughable (at the wrong times,) and, like I said, the mystery is never all that much of a mystery.  Martin, like Mitchum, was best in movies that let him play it laid-back and coolly bemused.  He needs manic energy to react to - think Shirley MacLaine, a young Sally Fields, or even Jerry Lewis.  He doesn't have the chops to carry a movie without someone like that, though.  Mitchum could, but the movie doesn't put him at the center.  It wouldn't matter anyway, because the only hope for this trite oater would be razing the story and starting over.  About the only fun this one provides - besides a scene with Mitchum and Yaphet Kotto near the end - is trying to decide who looks more bored, Martin or Mitchum.  My money's on Mitchum, but Martin gives him a go at it.  A waste of a good cast, and, save for a scene or two, a waste of a viewer's time.

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: Very overrated, narcissitic, and self indulgent.... . I was immensely disappointed by this film. The "avant-garde" style of the film has been done better by other filmmakers (specifically Derek Jarman, Kenneth Anger, and Harmony Korine), and the film is mostly about Jonathan, not about his mother. The critics made this film sound like it was an attempt by Jonathan to bring him closer to his mother, to try and understand her by making a film about her, and to bring "closure" to their relationship. Well, the film isn't really about Jonathan's mother, it's strictly about him. We hear and see tons of information (with annoying title cards) about Jonathan's life, career, and loves. It feels like an episode of "this is Jonathan's life", as if Jonathan is this absolutely fascinating, brilliant individual that we must all pay attention to. He may become a great artist someday, but he isn't there yet. Jonathan uses his mother merely as an excuse to make a very self-indulgent, narcissitic film about himself. He doesn't really seem interested in her, other than as an excuse to show how much HE'S suffered, not really about her suffering. While Jonathan had a horrendous childhood, I felt very little sympathy towards him, as he is constantly mugging for the camera in a "feel sorry for me, I'm gay and my mother is insane" way. The man has been taping himself since he was in grammar school, so he's just a tad in love with himself, methinks. Harmony Korine's julien donkey-boy is a film that deals with a schizophernic, and it is much more interesting and artistic than this film (Korine's uncle is a schizophernic). Derek Jarman shot his films in multiple formats similar to this film, like 35mm, 16mm, video, and super8, and weaved the images into an artistic and fascinating tapestry. Kenneth Anger, as well as Jarman, infused a gay sensibility into their films, which Jonathan doesn't do very well. Overall, disappointing, considering critics said it was absolutely brilliant....

SOLUTION:
NEG