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).

I'm just glad I didn't actually PAY to watch this! . We checked this out from the library a couple of years ago. It really was torture to watch. The acting was terrible, the costumes were even worse. I don't know whether to say it was really funny or really sad, because all in all it was a pretty pathetic production. Not one of BBC's better efforts
NEG

Another King Masterpiece Butchered . I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one. Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original. This film has all the feel of a made-for-tv movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come. That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book. Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural. Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters. They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder. Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film. Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.
NEG

Sigh . What a great premise and start to the movie as most of the world's children fall into a coma. 10 years later, no children are born that don't fall into the same coma. The stock market crashes, riots, the world is uneasy. Then the children wake up and they are out for blood. Sounds great, and the children first waking up is really scary. Then the story just falls apart, and the ending is just stupid. Nothing is really explained, and you are left empty at the end. No real gore and average acting. Clive Barker's name is attached, but he certainly did not write this
NEG