instruction:
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).
question:
Predictable and Uneven . I'm not going to write too much. If you need to hear more just check other reviews down here.  From all the 3 episodes only the first one, by Kar-Wai, is worth your time.   "The Hand" is well done and typical Kar-Wai. Beautifully shot by his usual contributor Christopher Doyle, it's the most compelling and sexy episode of the bunch. Gong Li, always very elegant, give us a powerful sexy scene and her presence establishes and guide the rest of the story. Well crafted but very predictable. The director lately seems to be referencing himself, which is halfway form self parody.  "Equilibrium" is just a bad cinematic joke and absolutely non sexy. Other than a few gratuitous and unrelated naked shots, is a simple and boring exchange between Downey Jr. playing an adman and his analyst played by Arkin.  But the worst by far is the Antonioni's episode. Is just so poorly done and acted that is an embarrassment. The, once, great director should have just retired by now (he was 91 in 2004) and let the rest of the world appreciate his masterpieces
answer:
NEG


question:
Hollow. Terrible.  One Good Line Quoted Here. . The characters are not appealing and the story is not interesting. An effort to watch. Make-up, dyed hair, costumes poorly done. One man's eyebrows, the suitor's, are altered like a woman's! No scenery or homes of interest, except a glance at the sailing ships in the harbor. Not a pleasant pace, without humor, without intrigue. A lesbian undertone in one scene.     The only positive thing I can think of is this good line of Jane Austen, quoted. Fanny sums up in one sentence, why she will not marry him. Women who have spent hours within romance in uncertainty, will wish to sum up their certainty with Ms. Austen's line: "His sole interest is in being loved, not in loving". This line is an exception to a lifeless script.   There, now you do not need to endure the painful movie. Here are two lines re-written by me: For the woman dealing with a trifling man: "No man suffers pains of love on the stage." For dealing with the infatuated man: "You have wounded yourself, but not with love."     This movie should be re-made by someone sharing the ideals of Jane Austen. There is plenty to be mined from the novel to create a pleasant film, humorous, with singing, with interest. A movie can take the best of the book, in the spirit of the book, which this movie did not carry, and make a movie better than the book. This movie is bad any which way.     Well-made period romance films are: "Pride & Prejudice 2005, 1996, & 1940", "Wives & Daughters", "North & South". Fairly made is "Under the Greenwood Tree". I rated "Persuasion" at 2-stars for the wooden acting; however "Persuasion" is 5-stars compared to this "Mansfield Park". "Persuasion" has attractive scenery, costumes, beautiful singing, and an uplifting plot; though of interest only to women, preferably who have already read the book.
answer:
NEG


question:
Dark, morbid and disturbing, but lacking that special something that made the original great. . "Pet Sematary Two" was directed by the same Mary Lambert who directed the original "Pet Sematary" and the similarities in style are clearly evident between the two movies.  Once again, Lambert paints a disturbingly dark and morbid picture in part two of this horror movie series.      Basically, the plot centers around a young boy played by Edward Furlong who is absolutely devastated by his mother's grisly demise...naturally, he would do anything to get his mother back and eventually does.  The basic premise behind this movie appears to be that the evil force behind the pet sematary is calling upon Furlong's character to resort to the pet sematary to bring back his mother along with some incredible evil as well.    Overall, the movie works a good bit like the original and while it is certainly an entertaining enough movie for horror movie fans, the sequel is not nearly as effective as the original.  One strong area that the original "Pet Sematary" had was the very interesting character of Jud played very well by Fred Gwynne...Jud's character carries the momentum of each scene in the original and basically made "Pet Sematary" work, but we don't have that strong character presence to make the wheels go round in this sequel, therefore the movie comes across flat.  What we do have in this sequel is an average horror movie that attempts to cash in on the success of the original classic.      Perhaps, the characters in "Pet Sematary II" are just weak in general (no disrespect to Clancy Brown or Anthony Edwards), but something is missing here in part two of this series despite the similarities in the dark and disturbing atmosphere painted so meticulously by Lambert.  Quite frankly, I did not like the casting of Edward Furlong as the main character to begin with...I don't know but it just left a bad taste in my mouth about this movie...he's such an uncharasmatic dork and his hard to sympathize with, notwithstanding the obvious limitations of his acting abilities.      The bottom line is that due to the lack of quality characters present in "Pet Sematary Two", the sequel just isn't near as compelling as the original.  Because "Pet Sematary Two" isn't anywhere near as good, nor as emotionally compelling as the original classic.  Indeed, one is left to wonder if a sequel was a smart move here.  Still, with that being said, "Pet Sematary Two" is not a terrible movie and so I give it TWO STARS which means it's just fair or average, but I would be remiss if I did not say that I've certainly seen a lot worse...just check out some of my other reviews and see what I mean.
answer:

NEG