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: A strong family drama, well worth watching... . With 21st century eyes, it's wonderful to see a family like the Waltons. Although they are scrabbling against poverty, living in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia during the Depression, they are happy. The large family, which includes seven children, parents, and grandparents, is loving and supportive. Sure, the kids aren't angels -- like any others, they squabble and have their problems. But when push comes to shove, they've got one another's backs, like when eldest sister Mary Ellen beats up a classmate for mocking little brother Jim Bob's shirt (made from sister Erin's old dress) or when eldest brother John-Boy defends Mary Ellen from a potential assault by a guest staying with the family. Most gratifying is the children's overall contentment. Sure, they aspire for "things" - they long to see a traveling circus that comes to the mountains, and they pause by toys displayed in the general store. But for the most part, they don't dwell upon what they don't have. They take contentment in life in general, and when the occasional treat comes their way, they truly appreciate it...unlike many kids today, whose parents buy them the latest iPods and video games, and it's STILL not enough. The Waltons' saga is told through the eyes of eldest son John-Boy, who is 17 and aspires to be a writer. He is based on Earl Hamner, a Virginia native who wrote "Spencer's Mountain," the book upon which the show is based. Hamner does a voiceover in each episode, speaking as the adult John-Boy looking back on his childhood. (For the record, I'm 26 years old, not someone who grew up with this show, or looks down upon "today's youth" from the vantage of age. But, as you know, not all young folks are content with the attitudes of today's society as a rule. I, for one, truly wish we could return to a simpler time; it won't be long before our complicated lives lead us to self-destruct.

A: POS
****
Q: What a soundtrack. Too bad the movie couldn't keep up. . This movie is one of cinema history's seminal examples of a soundtrack carrying a movie to success. "Saturday Night Fever" from a few years before is another example, but that movie could actually stand on its own. Jennifer Beales' torn neck sweater and table dancing routine aside, I don't think this one could. I understand this movie is near and dear to the hearts of a lot of 80's children, and I will agree this is one of the all-time great soundtracks of cinema. The problem is, the movie's plot is a slow-moving, wasted opportunity. Physically, Beales is sexy enough to keep your attention, and her portrayal of working-class girl in a man's job striving to express herself was a pretty novel idea when this movie was made. But her unsympathetic personality and mediocre acting undermine her character. Come to think of it, the acting all around is a bit weak. But that's not the problem. The movie suffers from two fatal let-downs. The first is the plot itself. Feminism-affirming depictions aside, it's pretty simplistic, unimaginative stuff, even for a dance movie. What's worse is how slow it all moves. The drama sequences in-between dances drag on, straining your patience and sympathy for the character's plights. The other more tragic flaw, since it is a movie about dance, is the cinematography. While it's certainly not the worst cinematography ever, (check out "the Limey" next time you want a headache.) the dance sequences look like they've been salvaged from scraps on the cutting room floor. We're supposed to be moved by Beales' character's natural talent, but for most of the movie we never get to see her do much except walk and pose in a crazy mashup of bad edits. By the time the final dance scene finally comes along, the drama of her audition performance is ruined by drawn-out, bad editing. It almost seems the judges let her into Juliard simply because she was able to stay in the air for longer than a minute. Perhaps I'm a purist for asking for good dancing onscreen to consist of more than rapid-fire editing. But if it's a movie about dancing, one would think the least they could do is show dancing. Many movies before and after Flashdance managed to get this right ("Saturday Night Fever" certainly did, to its great success), but maybe nobody told this movie's director. It's a shame

A: NEG
****
Q: What's all the fuss about? . Before I review, I'd like to clear something up: I am a very latecomer in seeing this movie. I was introduced to the Ghost in the Shell franchise through the new Anime series airing on Adult Swim, Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex. I absolutely love that show, and so I figured eventually I'd have to get around to seeing the movie, which I knew full well shares no connection with the show. They're both seperate interperetations of the comic series of the same name, (which I have not read, so I don't know which is more accurate) but the TV series is exponentially better than this movie in almost every concievable way. There are many things I don't like about this movie, the biggest being poor pacing. The plot for the movie is actually surprisingly straightforward once you cut away all the filler, but that's the biggest problem. There's not really enough story to last a full-length feature, because it seems almost like it was originally written with the intention of being a 30 minute short. And since they didn't have the budget to load the movie up with action scenes (there are barely any, and they aren't very impressive for the most part) they had to slow the story down with drawn out conversations that you won't understand more than 60% of, and camera shots that last for what feels like minutes where we're looking at either nothing, or a woman's nipples. That's not cinematic artistry, that's being either lazy or perverted. The animation itself isn't even that good, especially considering that this is was a theatrical release from only 10 years ago. It's choppy, and there's not really a whole lot of detail (except when it comes to women's nipples). Looking at just the animation, if I didn't know better, I'd have thought this movie was an OVA from the 1980's. The only thing I can really say I liked about this movie was that it was Ghost in the Shell. It's probably kind of like how I didn't see the 1989 Batman movie until years after I'd been spoiled by Batman the Animated Series, and couldn't bring myself to like it for any reason other than that it was Batman. Everything about the TV series is superior to this movie: the animation, the stories, the character developement, the production values... I could go on for an entire page about how much better the TV series is. In short, if you're you're at all interested in the GITS franchise, do yourself a favor and rent the DVDs of the TV show instead. You'll find a lot to love, but I can't say the same about the movie. My dream is that someday Alex Proyas will give us a GITS movie that lives up to what I would hope for after watching Standalone Complex

A:
NEG
****