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).

Example Input: Great Video for kids . Our 3-1/2 year old will watch this 24/7 if you let him.  Great fun for the kids (which is nice for mom & dad too
Example Output: POS

Example Input: Complete butchering of a good story . I had never seen Queen of the Damned until last night, when I had just finished Anne Rice's novel Queen of the Damned.  Knowing I would soon be done with the novel, I was curious to see the movie so I went out to MovieStop and picked up a cheap, used dvd copy, despite hearing that this movie was very bad.  Turns out, the word bad is an understatement.    Let me get to the point, there were several changes in the story, and I understand that some of this needs to be done in the movies for screen time reasons, etc.  But I found that after reading the novel, while the basic premise of the story is the same as in the novel, pretty much everything that gave the novel's plotline it's depth and intrigue was removed from the story in the film adaptation, and this movie simply falls flat.  I was shaking my head by the end of the movie with such disappointment that so much of the story was hacked away.  The vampires in this movie are not portrayed with the amount of love & feeling that is intended by Anne Rice, Akasha included.  Maharet, perhaps the foremost character in the novel, basically doesn't show up until the end of the movie simply to take part in a disappointing final showdown.  Again, all of the backstory that should have been present here was missing.    I won't spoil it for any of those who still plan to read the novel, but Akasha's motives for what she was planning to do were actually logical (in her own evil and misguided way), but there was a reason for it that she saw as legitemate, where as in the movie it was simply "everybody must die!".  Period.  That's your motive for everything that the movie was building up to.  I can't stress this enough - the depth of the book is GONE in the movie.    Like I said, I understand that things need to be trimmed/skipped for the sake of screen time, etc., but this movie was barely over 1 1/2 hours long, and so much of the plot development could still have been included here to give this movie the depth that it lacked.  What's wrong with adding even another 30-45 minutes of screen time to fill in the story and make it a 120 or 135 minute film?  Heck, I sat in the theatres for all three Lord of the Rings movies which all ran over 3 hours.  Or was this movie directed at punk kids with 10 minute attention spans, rather than the fans of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles?  Such a shame, because this movie really had the potential to equal, if not better, the adaptation of Interview With the Vampire.    I could go on and on about the other things that were done in this movie that I thought were just stupid, silly, etc. etc.  Kind of like how the other vampires were pissed at Lestat for revealing himself to the world as a vampire and giving away vampiric secrets, yet they decide to fly up on stage during the middle of the concert, in front of tens of thousands of people and start fighting, in essence "revealing" themselves as well, which is totally inconsistent with why these vampires were angry in the first place.  I won't go into all of the details, because it would take too much writing to tell you everything that bugged me.    Bottom line, I guess if you're into cheesy vampire action flicks with a Korn, etc. movie score, then you may still see some value here, but Anne Rice diehards will most certainly find this movie a waste of their time.  But don't let this movie scare you out of reading the novel, because the book is much much MUCH better than this movie
Example Output: NEG

Example Input: &quot;To fight fascism you have to be a communist.&quot; . One of the most notorious espionage stories of the 20th century involves several members of Britain's upper crust. While Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess, Kim Philby, and Donald MacLean attended Trinity College, Cambridge, in the 1930s, they were recruited as spies by the Soviet government. All of the men subsequently gained prestigious jobs and successfully passed secrets to the Russians for several decades. The four-hour television mini-series, &quot;Cambridge Spies&quot;, concentrates on the characters of the spies, and how the society they were part of allowed them to flourish.       The film begins with Trinity College, Cambridge in the 1930s. Hitler's power is on the rise, and fascism manages to impress a certain segment of the British upper classes. In response to the rise of fascism, many are attracted to communism. Blunt and Burgess are members of an elite club--the Apostles--and they are both committed communists when they meet and become involved with Donald MacLean and Kim Philby. The four men form a tight bond, which remains even after they leave university. Philby and Burgess both held high positions in MI6, and MacLean became a diplomat. Blunt--a distant relative to the royals--was knighted and became the Royal Curator of Art for the Queen.       &quot;Cambridge Spies&quot; succeeds in showing how these men were attracted to communism in the first place. They all came from wealthy, privileged backgrounds, and involvement with communism was a reaction against that, and also a reaction against fascism. The film shows the political and social atmosphere in which the &quot;Cambridge Spies&quot; made their commitment to communism. The film is also extremely successful in showing the 'old boy network' that existed, and which, in effect managed to protect the spies. They were simply beyond suspicion and beyond reproach.      Guy Burgess (Tom Hollander in an amazing performance) is a volatile extrovert with a penchant for self-destruction. Kim Philby (Toby Stephens) is much more controlled, and he seems the more rational of the bunch. MacLean (Rupert Penry-Jones) is another loose cannon, and Blunt (Samuel West) enjoys his connection with his royal relatives far more than he anticipated. While I deplored the misguided actions of the spies, it seems quite plausible that at least two of the four men (Blunt and Burgess) lived to really regret their youthful decision to convert to communism. But they found themselves stuck in a lifetime commitment before they realised the consequences. Blunt and Burgess seemed to truly love England, and their involvement with the Soviet government is sadly ironic.      &quot;Cambridge Spies&quot; is really is an incredible story. The plot sticks more or less to the truth--although some details are not quite accurate. The most glaring deviation concerns the defection of Guy Burgess. DVD extras include a documentary, and there's also a 'scrapbook' with TV tidbits about each of the spies--displacedhuman
Example Output:
POS