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: Terrible-don't waste your money . This supposed 'language lab' is VERY poorly designed. The dvd consists of images of items with a nursery rhyme or poem being recited in another language. The amazing thing is that the item shown has no relation to the words being spoken! It might as well be completely random sounds, since anyone who has studied child language acquisition knows that babies learn from making observations of language used in context. While I understand that supposedly this DVD is only intended to 'stimulate' the brain, by six months, a baby's brain has developed specifically to hone in on the sounds presented in his own native language, and to selectively ignore others. The brain continues to prune and forge neural networks in response to sounds from the language spoken in the home, thus the idea that random speech sounds are somehow beneficially stiumlating is invalid. A baby's brain becomes stimulated by the sounds that appear repeatedly in his own language. Habituation and imaging studies have shown this time and time again. Imagine if the baby's brain gave equal attention to any sound--the brain would waste valuable time and resources on information that would not be useful in learning to communicate with his caretakers. We acquire langauge so rapidly because the brain is selective.     Babies depend heavily on repitition, adult modeling, observing cause and effect, and from watching other people's behaviors to learn language. The idea that your child with learn anything from just hearing forgien language sounds out of context is very silly. If you want your child to learn language sounds and words from a language not spoken in the home, try exposing him to another language speaker on a routine basis, or show him programs like Dora or Sesame Street, where there is lots of explicit context to help a baby infer meaning, clear annunciation, and repition.
Example Output: NEG

Example Input: Character Study . Allen's September (1987) suffered from highly dismissive reviews which remains consistent with the public's view that Allen should produce comedies. Allen's willingness to risk, whether he fails or not, should be a clear invitation to consider this piece if just for the purpose of contrasting his present work with earlier films that defined him as a professional funny man.     The discerning viewer might enjoy this character study about six people if he or she wants a piece that demands a bit more reflection. As other reviewers wisely point out, Allen borrows from Chekov, particularly Uncle Vanya, in September and shows us how selfishness and thoughtlessness have their repercussions on innocent bystanders.     But the plot unfolds carefully as Lane (Mia Farrow) struggles to deal with unrequited love for a struggling writer (Sam Waterston)and an unwelcome guest in her mother (Elaine Stritch). I tend to favor the scenes which take place in candlelight. Lane's best friend, Stephanie, (Dianne Wiest) plays the piano as various characters reveal their fears and desires in carefully constructed monologues and dialogues. We learn a great deal about how professional concerns do not always eclipse the existential questions people face or the reality that people can go on living while harboring painful regrets.     Eventually, a particular truth surfaces which sends the characters reeling but Allen gives us a reprieve by offering an ending that is fair albeit unnerving.     Allen fans who enjoy his comdies should switch gears to view this film. Like his more sober films, September offers viewers the pleasure of character development as the fuel which moves the film forward.
Example Output: POS

Example Input: The can be written for a Democrat, or Republican . For that matter it can be written for any party candidate that wants the truth of his/her dirty secrets covered up. I feel that it's the most insulting film to be released. It hides the fact that we as citizens, and our government don't really care about who we stick in office. If the party lines up with what we believe in screw the fact he had to cover something up. I can't fathom why we continue to fall for this all the time, and believe me I don't feel it's right to air it all over the news either. I feel that it comes down to the man, and if he does have the values his/her party believes in then he will do the honorable thing, and own up to his/her mistake. This movie is just another nail to drive into the justification that it's alright to cover things up, and there are no absolutes, or rights or wrongs. Wht happens when we tick off the wrong person who's rich? Do we wait until then to change the moral? That's Pathetic, and so is this movie
Example Output:
NEG