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: Never achieving its goal . I'll be right up front and admit that I do not own this DVD. I hesitated writing a review for it because of that fact. But then I realized that if you're reviewing a DVD, 90% of the review must be based on the movie itself, and having saw the movie when it was released, and having seen it again on the various cable channels, I felt I could write a respectable reveiw.    Frankly, the movie barely approaches a "B-Movie" status. It's only claim to fame is that it was the first major Hollywood motion picture that did not portray homosexuals in a bad light.    The plot is rather unbelievable, naming the fact that all three main characters are leaders in their field.... successful author, high-ranking network producer, top-rate doctor. Nobody has a profession, or is in a position, with which the audience can relate. The dialog is forced and, at times, rather cliche. Acting is acceptable, though supporting cast members are rather amateurish. Direction is functional, at best.    One glaring problem is the tendency for the movie to suddenly switch from drama to documentary. After or before key scenes, the camera cuts to a monologue from one of the main characters. The effect is startling, doesn't advance the story, and only serves to distract the viewers and lessen the already-weak emotional impact of the film.    To its credit, the actors did whole-heartedly portray gay characters and gay love scenes. At the time, gay characters were never portrayed in a positive light from the media, and it was a great risk to do so here. There were no previous movie experiences of this topic that the director and actors were able to draw on, and they did the best they could.    It was a very ambitious project and was supposed to be ground-breaking and revolutionary, but the weaknesses in the film never raised it high enough to truly make much of a difference in society. This is absolutely proven by the fact that Brokeback Mountain, released about two decades later, had to work very hard to break the same stereotypes that Making Love previously attempted to break. The difference is that Brokeback Mountain was a true work of art impeccable in its execution and actually broke ground and stereotypes, and Making Love all but disappeared in the annals of time.    If you're a collector of good film, this really wouldn't be part of your collection. To add into a collection of films showing early portrayals of homosexuals and homosexual relationships, it would be very appropriate. Sadly, it really is good for only that one reason, as part of a collection of gay films throughout the years

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: Jack's Best Work . I can't remember when I saw this one on the big screen.  It was not long after Easy Rider and we had the idea that this Jack Nicholson had something to say to our 60's-70's counter-culture.  He did have something to say with some of the sharpest acting I had ever seen. He out-classed the James Dean's and Marlon Brando's, but not with ease.  Jack was workin' hard, switching from depressed concert pianist to hillbilly good time dude to misunderstood Romeo in five-minute intervals.  No, make that changeable temperament every five seconds, truly an artistic milestone. Throw in an equally magnificent portrayal by Karen Black, sexy and hillbilly; Jessica Simpson, eat your heart out, and you have the couple of the year, 1970.    Jack's father is one of those evil patriarch's that hurt their kids bad, pushing them to greatness without an ounce of love.  Consequently, the siblings are brilliant and eccentric.  The daughter is a frumpy dope.  The older son is a violinist with a neck injury, and then there's handsome Jack, shiftless, moving from bed to bed, crossing the country, a boozing bum.  Back in the Vietnam years there was an examination of bourgeois life.  Did we have to get a job and get married?  Was everyone in a particular cubbyhole, mail in the funeral?  Hence, we had the counter-culture, drugs, long haired hippies, sexual openness, and shiftless lifestyles. Bob Rafelson's film gives you that, but mercifully, with subtly.  That last scene at the gas station says it all.  I think directors would be hard pressed to sum up a film's theme so effectively with so little noise - amazing.

SOLUTION: POS

PROBLEM: Lame . I am a huge fan of the books and had been very excited to see this film when it came out. Unfortunately, I was horribly disappointed.     The acting was terrible, elements of the story were changed (I know, it can't be 100% true to the book, but this was a massacre), and the characters were ruined (c'mon, they made the movie version Mr. Tumnus seem just a tad bit...um...creepy). They turned Aslan into nothing more than a poorly animated talking lion.     Seriously, go read the books and don't waste your time on this film.

SOLUTION:
NEG