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]: DO NOT BUY the 3D Version...less than 15 mins total 3D . I wish I came here first before allowing my 5 yr old daughter to save and buy this movie, we own the original (non 3D version) and she knew the 3D version was the same movie but was excited about the 3D aspect and the commercial rums every 15 mins here so she asked if she could get it.      We made a chore chart and started saving and mom and dad pitched in half, (at least we had some learning involved with the chore chart), finally got up the money to go buy the 3D version, got home turned off lights put on glasses even made popcorn, Mom Dad Daughter, then we realized Bibble pops on and says take glasses OFF after a few mins of intro 3D?  15 mins goes by no 3d then you are told put glasses ON again etc, overall this movie contains about 10-15 mins total of 3D and most of it NOT in parts you would even WANT to see 3D action...    Needless to say having already bought the first release, even knowing this would be the same movie but buying it for the 3D feature, it falls short bigtime due to the LACK of 3D in the movie.    Buy the original it's better, and it IS a good movie!  Just having kids take off the 3D glasses 5+ times per showing (expecting them to hold them I guess?) for 15-20 mins at a time between the 2-3 min 3D segments is just asking for broken paper 3D glasses and leads to an overall DUD of a supposed 3D release
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Remarkable!  Pure Visual Poetry . Sergei Eisenstein's Que Viva Mexico is a film that captures the majesty, awe, and tragedy of Mexico better than any other I have ever seen.  And it does so not with dialogue or plot, but rather thru "a sequence of short novellas" (Eisenstein's words) which each develop and play convincingly into the next.  Each of these vignettes to me display a celebration of real Mexican culture and a subtle depreciation of those things which came from Spain.  They evoke the heart of true Mexican patriotism as if it were struck directly from a Rivera mural.  For anyone interested in Mexico or Mexican cinema, Que Viva Mexico is an absolute must.        Que Viva Mexico is certainly one of the most famous "unfinished" films in history, with a tragic star-laced history about which whole books have been published.  In a few words, Sergei Eisenstein went to Hollywood but was almost immediately ostracized by the old studio moguls.  Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin led him to the famed moralist, communist, and novelist Upton Sinclair, who agreed to finance a south-of-the border film.  The budget was $25k and shooting was to take four months.  Sinclair's brother-in-law was to tag along and supervise.  A couple of Eisenstein's Russians comrades would handle the cinematography and equipment.      Exactly what happened after that is a matter of some dispute, including countless cross and counter accusations of extremely lewd behavior and fabulous revelry.  What is certain is that after 11 months in Mexico the film was still missing its final section and Sinclair pulled the plug on the whole operation.  Furious, he then managed to block Eisenstein's return to America and convince Stalin he had been a poor communist.  Sinclair kept all the footage and Eisenstein was sent back to Russia in shame.    Eisenstein still believed he could make a great film out of his footage and fought to get it back, but Sinclair refused and had it edited by his own Hollywood producer.  From this work came the feature Thunder Over Mexico (1933) and the shorts Eisenstein in Mexico (1933) and Death Day (1934).  While these versions influenced great future directors like Welles, Huston, Bunuel, and Leone, they were not the real vision of the great director.  In the 1970s, the Russians finally got the reels, and Grigori Aleksandrov, who had been there and assisted with the original filming, put it back together following Eisenstein's original plan.       Back to the film, it is essentially a silent with narration, a music track, and limited sound effects added.  I don't have any problem with this as the alternative would have been to fabricate intertitles which would have been even less natural.  Anyway talkies were already completely dominant by 1932 and Chaplin used a sound effect track in all his later silents.  The musical track is sheer magic and certainly benefits from the extra years.  There is an abrupt break when the final unfilmed section is reached, before we are taken back to the Day of the Dead epilogue.  Frankly, I don't think much was lost here: Eisenstein was right when he said he didn't need that last segment to finish the film.  The third segment was already just a bit long, and adding the fourth (a continuation of the third) would have unbalanced the film.  Hence I would have just run the third segment straight into a more somber start of the epilogue.  But the way it was done does show us what was "lost", so in that sense it is valid.  My only qualm with this DVD is the fact that it doesn't have Spanish subtitles, as I think all Mexicans should experience this film!      One last thing:  the 1946 epoca dorada classic Enamorada by famed Mexican director Emilio Fernandez could be seen as a sort of tribute film to Eisenstein and Que Viva Mexico, as it basically fills out a story based on the sodadera lost segment of this film.
[A]: POS


[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