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).

[EX Q]: For BB fans a strong 4; casual sports fans a 3. . Though some people consider Cobb the greatest, I don't recall ever seeing any name higher than Mr. Ruth in any book, on any list, with the exception of one book which places Willie Mays at the top. So with that statement, there should be many sports fans and historains who would want to check this movie/DVD out (though it's a little light on actual baseball *playing* - too bad, because the photography/camera work is terrific). Tommy Lee Jones plays the part as if he's auditioning for the part of Mephistofolies; or Sweeney Todd; it's surely "over the top" but he dominates every single scene he's in, actually over-running (with no sharpened spikes) Mr. Rhul, playing the (now) legendary sports writer Al Stump. In "real life", it seems Stump had to deal with a relatively tame but decidedly moody lion, in motel rooms, in banquet halls, in lounges, all over the place. The movie portrays a somewhat self-righteous writing genuis, as it constantly refers to his own personal troubles - the more he yells at his employer, who ultimately he does befriend, albeit cautiously, the more the very perceptive, though dying 72 year old man, reminds him of his own mess as a filanderer and failed husband. There's a rather unconvincing scene towards the end of the picture, when at some motel Stump is presented with Divorce papers and he begins to fire Cobb's gun in the direction of this guy who's been chasing him around the country for this purpose. The script is very strong throughout but here the scene ends on a depressing note. What was needed was for Cobb to simply convey through his eyes "Wanna throw any more "stones" at *me*, son?" Well, maybe that's a bit trite, but the scene closes as Lee says that he saw nothing - just a coupla bad boys. Lolita Davidovitch has some good scenes, but her 1960 Vegas Cocktail Waitress has the look but not the "feel", meaning Shelton probably had to make her a milennium feminist to fit the quasi-political contemporary movie industry demands. Keeping the character more to the period would have worked. Another concession to the male-female spirit of today, not 1960, is in a deleted scene: Stump watches, through his office window, and in the company of his Secretary, a shapely lady ascend a staircase. In the midst of his confusion and disorientation, he tells his exasperated co-worker to tell his wife, who has just called, well, tell her something. I wonder what the "real" Al Stump thought of that kind of stuff. Tyrus Raymond Cobb surely fought death...and life. In his profession, he reached high, refusing to be taken lightly or be beaten. As his violent world finally came crashing in, and his health was in free-fall, he still refused to acknowledge his vulnerability, his mortality. Maybe that's the only real lesson to be learned by all of this: even a wicked man can sustain by calling up his reserve of strength and courage; maybe even artfulness. Mr. Shelton delivers a very interesting narrative of the back story, though he sounds very subdued - perhaps the memory that the kind of numbers the Georgia Peach drew out to the old ball park did not exactly compare to this movie about his last days
[EX A]: POS

[EX Q]: Disappointing . First of all, for the caliber of actors in this movie, they deserved a better script. Michelle Pfeifer and Peter Gallagher are class acts, but really this movie just did not dig deep enough. I have read all the rave reviews of Claire Danes, as I have read all the raves in the past and I am beside myself. I mean she has mastered the part of the proverbial angst-ridden pouting teenager to a tee. If this is her niche, so be it. The premise of the story is pretty decent -- a man loses his wife in a tragic freak accident and has a hard time moving on. Completely understandable. Then his annoying sister in law and her equally annoying husband arrive and proceed to berate the poor guy for mooning over a wife that is dead. Oh my god, stop the presses. These people had the sensitivity of androids. It would have been nice to see him kick these people out of the house, but then the film would'nt drone on and on, This is a good film for a rainy day. But I expected more
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: Politically correct retelling ruins the message. . Although it looks the same as the HG Wells story and the 1960 movie, this bastardization of the source material turns a frightening story about man's nature into a mildly fun sci-fi outing. Alexander's motivation for building the Time Machine is entirely different, and what he learns 80,000 years in the future could have been deduced by a more probing scientific mind (that is, if it was used to dealing with less than scientific cinematic time-travel paradoxes). So the first half of the movie wreaks havoc on the source material and pales in comparison with the fabulous creativity of the George Pal version. We don't even find out anything about what we are about to see! But things get worse is in the distant future. Although the writing tries to dance around the fact -- they have de-fanged the harsh reality of the Eloi and softened the horriffic underpinnings of their naivete. Instead of unknowing sheep, they are new-agey world-culture pluralists. The dichotomization of the human race really makes little sense. And there is no Rod Taylor running about castigating the apathy of his hosts. The only reason why I give the film two stars is because it is one of the only genuine sci-fi films in years, and I found some of the special FX (the moon) and Jeremy Irons, cheesy as they may have been, fun
[EX A]:
NEG