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).

Beautiful and Unique, but oddly frustrating . Dancing on Dangerous Ground is best described as a ballet expressed through the medium of Irish dance. The costuming is modern and the acts form a very cohesive story (much more so than Riverdance), but the superposition of romance, tragedy, and war on a dance invented for celebration seems...contradictory at best.     The performance is technically excellent, and for some, the military scenes alone will make the DVD worth it. But the Irish Legend - a tale of a first officer and a queen who betray their king not unlike Lancelot and Guinevere - has Griana truncating her forms so as not to bounce too much during her lament, and both leads trying to express longing without breaking Irish posture during their romance. In that sense, watching Dancing on Dangerous Ground is kind of like admiring a painting of the sunset over a tropical beach done in glorious black and white. Even if you think black and white photography is beautiful, and love sunsets and the tropics, you end up wishing that the painter had chosen to change either the subject, or the medium.     The one place where medium and subject DO work well is in the military scenes, where Irish precision is put to amazing use; then the watcher can feel the rhythm and the power conveyed, even through the TV screen. But in the scenes in between, I found myself craving a no-hold-barred energetic number that expressed the joy of Irish dance (like the ones which made Riverdance famous), and wishing for the full upper-body expression of a ballet during some oddly stilted during laments and romantic scenes.     As an Irish dance piece it's well executed, and as a ballet the costuming is inventive and the music beautiful, but there's an odd quality to watching it. Sometimes it gives the impression of muted color, sometimes of undersold majesty, but always there's the feel that the passion, while *almost* there, is somehow still missing.
NEG

Another King Masterpiece Butchered . I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one.     Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.     This film has all the feel of a made-for-tv movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.     That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.     Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.     Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.     They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.     Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.    Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.
NEG

Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Movie . I apologize the the children's author for mis-using the title of a very good book, but it seemed so right!  Assuming that the Greeks lived much like the Oliver Stone asserts, and why not, then it was hard to be Macedonian, Greek, and royal.  There is enough angst in this movie for the rest of Alexander's cut short life.  Three hours of this much angst is three hours too much.  I give it 2 stars for the scenery, the story that is probably pretty spot on, and the fact that someone had the good sense to have Sir Anthony Hopkins and Christpher Plummer in the movie.  They are the redeeming features of the whole thing.  But I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking for a more historical venue.  Read a good book about it!!  Sorry, Oliver, but it's JFK all over again.  Plausible, but just not the case

NEG