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).

[Q]: If you want a rocumentary watch VH1 . Very disappointed with this DVD.  Like I said above, if you want to view a rockumentary watch VH1 alot cheaper.  Description very misleading
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Ken Park how not to make a movie . Larry Clark reminds me of a lot     Let's take a look at his pathetic resume shall we:    *Kids-Yes another soft porn film involving Kids.    *Bully- This movie should be when "White Trash attacks".  Bully featured mundane acting, the most UNLIKABLE characters  ever to put on screen, stupid characters, a "twist" that  aint really a twist, awful camera shots and angle and  a "gay bull". Nuff said.    *Teenage Caveman-Subpar sci-film.    Now we get to Ken Park, probably the most revolting   story of Clark's kids trilogy if you will.    These kids special? Please give me a break. I don't  call killing your neighbors or grandparents, special.    Doing drugs makes you special? Funny I thought that made  you a druggie and a loser.    There is no smoothness or observation or anaylsis of  the kids from any sort of rhetorical view. Anyone who  who seeks to compare this to classic shows like Family  Ties, or My So Called Life isn't fooling anyone.    One key difference, the kids in so called life, knew they  were troubled, lost and asked for help. The teens in "Ken Park"  could give a crap if they live or die, their days are spent  on drug binges, fornicating with the friends and in some  cases, their friend's mother.      Really it doesn't get anymore revoling that Larry Clark.    None of the characters in the movie can be considered,  weak, inept, pathetic, loony comes to mind but far  from being strong.    Softcore and hardcore pornograpy seem to be what the filmmaking  is echoing nothing else, the other reviews even the most  positive ones can ignore that.    There is no reality with these kids, they live in their  violent world and heaven forbid if you try to take them  out of it.    Clark is not anybody's master of art, if you're art is  hardcore pornography, mixed in with convulted storyline  , with no rolemodels, no point and weak characters then  people need to pick up a dictionary or read actual  definitions of art.    The movie is nothing more than tour de force of obscene garbage  that should be flushed down the toilet.    Seeing at the reception Clark has received over the year,  it's great that fans are starting to see what he really  is just a perverted old man , nothing else.    Even then his movies make him look even more pathetic.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Thoroughly Entertaining . This is a really good movie with an excellent excellent screenplay. The movie begins with the birth of punk, when a small roomful of people were fortunate enough to catch the Sex Pistols when they first came out, changing the course of music, and ends with the death of acid. As Tony Wilson puts it in the film, it is the "story of Manchester," that begins when a group of young and idealistic local boys decide to screw London and its record companies and start producing their own records out of Manchester, and boy, has music history benefited from this decision. It's interesting to note that as these young lads on the forefront of the music scene in Manchester began to age, they become less idealistic as they were in their youth, and more acknowledging of reality and its limits. My only complaint is that I wish the movie could have had more on Joy Division and New Order, than on the Happy Mondays. Why did Tony Wilson ever sign a band that came in last place in Manchester's Battle of the Bands??? The casting for this movie is outstanding, as well.    Two big thumbs up.    P.S. I don't know why they used the cover that they did for the DVD. It really has nothing to do with the film
[A]:
POS