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]: But The Movie Only Has One . Even though I am not a Streisand fan, I was astonished at just how dopey and annoying this movie was.  The plot is supposed to revolve around a big change in appearance for Streisand's character, making her attractive - no, irresistible - to the main male character.  The problem is, she looks almost exactly the same before and after the makeover!  Somebody (probably Streisand) thinks that highlighted hair, a tight black cocktail dress, and a baggy-lipped smirk are irresistible whereas a pink bridesmaid dress, casual clothes, and everyday looks are disgusting. BAAAAAAMP!  (That's the fallacy alarm going off:  men, in my experience, don't care much about clothes and makeup.)   There was a lot of emphasis placed on the Streisand character's losing weight by riding an exercise bike, but she looked exactly the same afterward - no detectable weight difference!  Yet truly, the low point of the movie is the scene in which Streisand, discussing her baby and early-childhood photos with her mother (played by Lauren Bacall), blubbers, "Wazz I a pretty baby?  WAZZ I A PRETTY BABYYYYEEEE?"  In that one scene, Streisand's neuroticism concerning her looks is fully revealed.  The whole movie is about this issue, and it's amazing that an entire cast, crew, and production company would devote themselves to B.S.'s emotional issues like that.  I really think that the "Funny Girl" phenomenon somehow ruined Streisand's thought processes.  The media buzz about her at the time was that she was kind of cute despite being light-years away from the stereotyped, Northern European beauty standard of the time (think Grace Kelly; think Ingrid Bergman.....).  I recall reading about how her glowing complexion, thick hair, and good figure (as well as her energy and voice) carried her through despite her looks:  long nose, large lips, slanted eyes.  Myself, I think she looks like an Egyptian princess or similar; but she certainly doesn't look like Grace Kelly.....  So why can't she accept this?  The majority of us women, whatever our race, color, or bone-structure, learn to live with and love who we are.....at least I hope we do!  This movie is not about that.  This movie says that you have to have a certain dress and hairdo to be desirable.    Maybe I should've given it only one star
[A]: NEG


[Q]: For die hard Kutcher fans only. . The movie starts off very slowly, with childhood episodes from Ashton Kutcher's character.  It's at least 1/2 an hour before we see the adult Kutcher, although he does appear at the very beginning for a brief scene.  The premise is good, and it has some good momentum in the middle, which is why I gave it two stars.  The shifting situations of his life and the lives of his friends are interesting and well done, but the overall story line is very weak, and the ending is dreadful and not supported by most of the rest of the story.  Also, the movie has too many tongue-in-cheek references to Kutcher's real life circumstances -- such as the reference to "tighty-whities."  They distract from the story, and make the movie more of a vanity vehicle -- which is too bad -- If you are not a Kutcher convert and are just looking for a movie, skip this one
[A]: NEG


[Q]: if you like hard hitting stuff... . What is it with the British film scene and its distinctly gritty style. It seems that if we're not producing trashy Ealing comedies, it's a shocking reality drama with the likes of Ray Winstone in it?   Well Ray Winstone isn't in this one, but he could well be as the Rat Catcher is another one of those 'you either enjoy challenging films or you don't' pieces.  I personally love them, I guess I must be a miserable bugger! Of course this film investigates the reality of the underclass, dysfunctional life lived in a rough and grimey housing estate.  But it is unique (well probably not unique) in that it is told pretty much entirely from the view of the 12 year old boy, played by William Eadie, who is struggling to make some sense of what is going on around him.    We learn that no matter what environment children grow up in, they always seem to hold true and remain untainted somehow.    Without wishing to give too much away, it is the final brief scene of this film which has stayed in my mind ever since I watched it in 2000. Worth the wait if you like being deeply moved by simple things
[A]:
POS