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).

[EX Q]: 1 of the 8 films to die for...out of boredom! . I generally steer clear of low-budget horror in that those films, while trying to be cutting edge, usually smack of just "trying"...too hard.  I gave "The Hamiltons" a go since it received the most hype.  Wasn't impressed.  Yes, the ending has a nice little twist, and I was intrigued by seeing Lenny--although once the twist happened it was easy to see it coming--the film lacks dramatic tension, contains mundane dialogue (victim: "help me"; predator [whining]: "I can't!), and characters are pretty much stock caricatures. 86 minutes drrrraggged by.
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: Lame . Two problems.    First problem.  Let's say you're the typical kidnapper-rapist-killer.  For fun and out of postmodern boredom, you kidnap two girls off the street in New York City.  What are the odds that your randomly-chosen getaway and killing spot is going to be exactly where one of the girls lives, 60 or 70 miles away?  One in ten million?  Twenty million?     Second problem.  The movie, even with a run time of an otherwise-short 84 minutes, doesn't have enough action or development to fill the void.  In short, it's boring, and in several scenes where Craven seems more interested in the bucolic Wechester County scenery than moving the plot along, I found myself reaching for the fast-forward
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: One of the iconic classics of the genre . If you are a fan of early SciFi movies, this is a must-have for your library. There are some classic shot sequences that have been honored in more recent films, and you should look for these. For example, Spielberg must be a big fan. Pay attention to the shot compositions for the field (fence, lighting, etc.) and seek out homages to be found in Close Encounters and War of the Worlds.    It is also highly informative to note the perspectives used for social mores, and for science in general. In today's world, the notion that "the town scientist" would turn his astonomical telescope into the daylight sky and view heavenly objects, then turn it below the horizontal and look across the countryside to view the goings on at a top secret military base, are both hoots. That the scientist sees a classic rocketship and knows simply by the form that it is "atomic", is classic. One can only imagine the wonder that science and the future held for the popular mind back then that the writers could get away with that kind of stuff.    And yet, in contrast, note the strong presentation of the female role, not as a nurse, but as a doctor who makes the initial tough decisions and takes charge of the situation, driving the story forward. Very progressive, when contrasted with the "scientist love interest who exists to admire the brilliance, bravery and manhood of the hero" found in the typical films of this genre and era. Admittedly, our heroine is subjected to those stereotypes later on in the story, which is disappointing.    I also love the military response. This is shortly after WWII. Because some kid has a bug up his tail, we roll the tanks onto the trains and storm the town. Commanding officers up on rooftops with binoculars!!    In summary, our modern levels of sophistication might diminish this film to Mystery Science Theater, but that would be unfair. Instead, I recommend watching it once for the sheer joy of it. Then, watch it a second time with a more critical eye and have all your laughs and pick out all your iconic scenes for future reference
[EX A]:
POS