You will be given a review about a book, an item, a place or a movie. After that, a question is given that you should answer using a certain span of the review. Your answer should be from the review itself and should not contain extra words, and should not be a combination of different spans. If there's no direct answer to the question, answer with a part of the text that is the most relevant to the question. See the examples for clarification.

[Q]: review: I was pleasantly surprised by this product and have subsequently ordered all other flavors! The blueberry bar has just enough sweetness to make it taste like a treat. no way would I have imagined these were raw and actually good for you. The bars are dense and moist, much better than the dry, crunchy, tasteless varieties of most nutrition bars. They are a bit small but the size is deceiving. They are very filling and give me the energy I need as either a breakfast substitute or as a pick me up in the afternoon. I appreciate the 6 gms of protein and 3 or so gms of fiber. While they do have a high fat content it comes purely from healthy sources such as the nuts in the various varieties. There is absolutely no sugar or flour in these, and since I do have a wheat food allergy and watch my sugar intake, I am thrilled to finely have a product I can enjoy eating without facing the consequences later. Worth every penny and more.
question: Is it a good ingredient?
[A]: The bars are dense and moist , much better than the dry , crunchy , tasteless varieties of most nutrition bars

[Q]: review: Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to 'The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like 'E.T.'. It is fun and exciting and engaging, but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and 'stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is 'jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the 'human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie 'mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in 'Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted 'non-baity' work to be his best (see 'Big' and 'That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only 'human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, 'Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not 'stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.
question: Is that movie good?
[A]: exciting and engaging

[Q]: review: Dry humor, witty remarks, and a bit of sarcasm, written in first person by the man we all now know as House. For me, the actual plot - which is sort of a spy thriller; part serious, part satire - was secondary to the writing and the characters. I didn't particularly care what they were doing. I just loved reading his words. His characters are vivid and unique. He has a true gift for writing dialogue and even his narrative sucked me in and held me in place.In all fairness, however, I must admit that the plot was at times convoluted in such a way that it could be difficult to follow. I think, in Laurie's effort to bring suspense to the story, he sometimes leaves the reader dangling in the wind. However, the entertainment value of his writing style carried me through any little rough spots in the plot.When I turned the last page, I was sad to say goodbye to the characters. Thomas Lang, Laurie's main character, wants to live on in my mind. And, for me, that's the mark of a great story.
question: Is the movie dialogue good?
[A]:
He has a true gift for writing dialogue