In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.

Not really . I have a hard time understanding what it is that I dislike about the novel. I dislike it almost as much as the movie. I have been a loyal follower of Smiley and some more after that. Once the Cold War was over, JlC had to look for a new realm. I tried to follow him, but gave up with the Kaukasian troubles, forgot the name of the book. Maybe it is this: JlC's trade mark, his USP, is the evilness of the other side. With the KGB & Co., that worked perfectly. His readers were willing to stay with him and believe him. Now he is transferring the KGB style to all sorts of other badies. I think it does not work any more. It is not that I trust the pharmaceutical companies enough to not be like here insinuated. I do not. What I do not like, I guess, is the artificial mood of intellectual suffering from the evilness of all kind of conspiracies. Tess in this story seems to be the normal do-gooder who falls foul with the baddies. That is more ok in the book than in the movie. (There, for my eyes, Rachel Weisz does herself discredit.) What is absolutely not ok is the surrender of command by the narrator mid way. JlC gives up on trying to keep a believable storyline and declines into darkest conspiracy allegations
NEG

excellent, worthwhile reading all of it . It is an amazing journey through our deepest fears and questions about life whether personal or professional. The first part goes through those questions all of us have or have had combined with real life examples and a second part where the author shares his insight as to what to do with all those questions and answers we start to get by reading the book
POS

Koontz was hyped as King's sole competition for so long... . But I don't understand why after reading this book. I saw flashes of Koontz as a contender with this story, but in the end the book limped along on half-drawn characters and stilted dialogue. Koontz came up with a grand slam premise, and it was the strength of the premise that dragged me across the finish line. Without that I'm not so sure I would've made it. The characters aren't all badly drawn, but none of them really feel complete. The dialogue is at times atrocious, at others simply frigid. As a case in point, I have not forgotten--nor will I ever forget--the preposterousness with which one of the characters described the monster in detail AS HE'S BEING EATEN. I almost took off my running shoes at that point. Almost. Koontz can write well when he puts his mind to it. But Phantoms proves too stiff and underdeveloped to truly showcase his talent. Pick up Intensity instead
NEG