Teacher: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).
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Certain times I like it, others I don't . How do you separate a socially important film from a great film? Sure this film tackled the AIDS/homosexuality issue head-on but that doesn't automatically make it a great film. I'm not knocking this film, of course not. But there's a lot of parts in it that I didn't like which maybe made it appear to be a lesser film than what it wants to be, it is or what everyone makes it out to be. Andrew Beckett works for a prestigious law firm working on a big account. His health declines a little bit nothing overly serious until he's fired for apparently botching the case. Turns out not only is he a homosexual but he has AIDS so he figures that's why he was fired. He needs representation so he hires Joe Miller, a top and famous attorney who is, rather bluntly, very intolerant of gays. So they form an unlikely duo to battle a top firm while dealing with gay bashers to closet gays. One small nitpick: it seemed like anyone that is in Andy's family or friends circle is against him. There was not a lot of normal everyman citizens who supported him. A similar problem in Brokeback Mountain where any scene with the 2 men was gorgeously shot while them with their wives looked rather bland and desolate looking, complete with sad looking wives. It's nothing that derails the film though. And I don't know why but I never liked Jonathan Demme's trademark of looking in the camera. It works for Silence of the Lambs but here it looks...weird, and maybe a bit too on the nose. Now Tom Hanks did win the award for Best Actor but honestly it should've went to Denzel Washington who manages to be visibly struggling with his less-than-enthusiastic view on gays and the changing perspectives dealing with the case. Hanks, in a way, reminds me of Charlize Theron who put on ugly makeup for Monster. Losing a crapload of weight does not automatically give you an Oscar. No knock against Hanks but it seems funny it went to him instead of Washington. Is it a watchable film? Of course, it's quite good and performances are excellent. I don't know whether you should blind buy it though, that's up to you
Student:
POS