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:
Stick with the original . When Hollywood decided that the classic Christmas cartoon How the Grinch Stole Christmas needed updating, I experienced a quaver of fear. How, I wondered, could anyone bring the classic Dr. Seuss tale and its gnarly green villain to life as vividly as the 1966 animation?    I can give a mixed report. Jim Carrey, in the title role, does a marvelous job recreating the nasty antithesis of Yuletide joy. His actions and facial contortions are near-perfect (although his voice, I must admit, pales in comparison to the cartoon version's Boris Karloff). He dominates the entire film with energy and antics only slightly overshadowed by his prodigious makeup and costume. Anthony Hopkins also did good work as the narrator.    But director Ron Howard didn't do the Seuss story complete justice. Instead of reimagining the original through a new lens, he gave us a completely different story. The Whos of Who-ville are the primary victims here -- where once they were beatific inhabitants of a remote and pastoral village, they've become greedy, materialistic, hard-partying gluttons in a town based solely on marketing and capitalism.    Cindy Lou Who, the innocent tot who discovers the Grinch at his nefarious thievery, is now an older child (Taylor Momsen) bent on redeeming the famous hermit, who boldly braves his mountain fastness to spread her version of holiday cheer. Even the Grinch's pseudo-Santa sleigh has been reinvented, now boasting rocket boosters. And the new back-story, which attempts to explain the Grinch's Christmas loathing, doesn't make a lot of sense. While the cartoon gave us a villain who was evil, rotten to his core and filled with inexplicable rage at the world, this Grinch is simply misunderstood and overly mischievous. Also, should the Grinch's big redemption scene really involve so much heart-thumping pain?    I feel sorry for the children who will grow up associating this movie with Dr. Seuss' marvelous story, rather than the animated feature which still holds up so well after 35 years. A favorite Christmas tradition has been replaced with typical Hollywood glitz and glitter, and the season is poorer for it. Please, if you have children (or a childlike fascination for Christmas), stick with the original.    by Tom Knapp, Rambles edito
answer:
NEG


question:
Not as good, but still watchable... . This second sequel to "Darkman" maintains the visual style of the first two, has great music, a few good action moments, and a very good performance from Arnold Vosloo as the hero. These are the four things I liked most about "Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die," which isn't a bad movie, but it's not very good either. I'm not only a fan of Darkman, I'm also a fan of Sam Raimi, Liam Neeson, and Arnold Vosloo. Given this, I was sad to see Raimi and Neeson leave the franchise, but am thankful for Vosloo's performance. He does a great Darkman/Westlake and the sequels, especially this movie, have him to thank. While the second was a great follow-up, this film is a little on the stupid side. Jeff Fahey, overacting in every scene, plays bad guy Peter Rooker, who is a drug dealer who is after Darkman when a large sum of money is stolen from him. The plot digs deeper into Rooker's life and soon Darkman is disguising himself as Rooker and befriends his wife and daughter. Darkman soon makes a vow that he will not get involved with the family, that he is only after Peter. But soon Darkman's light side gets the better of him. The movie is bleeding with predictable moments and painfully awful one-liners. Thankfully, director Bradford May keeps a dark, violent tone to the movie and mostly keeps the movie serious about itself. There are a few unintentionally funny moments, more so than in the second, and this hurts the movie a little. I suppose the reason to see this film is if you liked the first two. I did, and gladly added this one to my collection. I have no regrets about it, but take fair warning: only fans will enjoy this one. Everyone else will be in the dark
answer:
NEG


question:
since when did wesley and woody become lovers? . take 2 ugly men and toss in an overhyped horrible singer/actress and youve got another razzie.minus j-lo and this might have been a 2 star movie
answer:

NEG