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: The clash of two cultures! . Kaufman's adaptation of Michael Crichton's Japan-bashing potboiler is a realtively light approach, a simple buddy-cop movie featuring a pair of entertaining star performances. In spite of the fact the novel's alarmism about the dangers of a dominant Japan would soon be undercovered by a mellow script that confers much more importance to the opposite views between Eastern and Western worlds around a lot of issues, the director muted the xenophobic material that had made the book so terrific and brutal, transforming it into an interesting film, whose plot is nourished by great visual effects and the stunning differences between both cultures, with Sean Connery working out as the common link between two ways of life with a great doses of suggested violence and alarming use of the technology to create unexpeceted accusations. Yet Sean Connery makes a very credible performance, as the detective, the script seems uncapable to surmount the anecdothic character of good guys and bad guys, and the ominous presence of the Japanese mob with pretensions of Noir Film, the picture leaves us a bitter taste, because even if there are good sequences, the whole material promised best best and major intentions.

SOLUTION: POS

PROBLEM: Fock You! . This movie was AWESOME!  Ben Stiller is a comic GENIUS, he's the new Jerry Lewis!  DeNiro, AWESOME!  Hoffman, AWESOME!  Streisand, AWESOME and still very sexy for an old liberal ho!  I thought the sight gags were priceless, and the plot line serene!  This was Hollywood movie watching heaven!  This film should have won some Academy Awards!  I mean if Marisa Torme can win for My Cousin Vinnie, these A-1 actors should've at least been nominated!  This is a highly entertaining film, and I recommend it to every and anyone to see, but wear your Depends, because you might pee yourself from laughing so hard!  Dubya 99, you don't know what in the FRIGGIN' H E L L you're talking about!  Yeah like we're suppose to take the opinion of an anti-social loser, that complains about going out to the movies?  Stay home, I'm sure Dateline NBC will be calling soon about that episode they had recently

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION:
NEG