TASK DEFINITION: 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).
PROBLEM: Definitive portrayal of generation X (for what that's worth) . Many reviewers and critics said it best...what do you do when the "hero" of the film (Ethan Hawke) is a complete a---hole, Winona Ryder is a horrid documentarian that would give Ed Wood, Jr. a run for his money, and Stiller, who is supposed to be the bad guy, actually isn't that bad of a human being? And Winona's friends are the smarmy, arrogant, Generation X punks who think they know everything (when the reality is (forgive the pun) they don't know jack). Past generations would quote Tolstoy and Shakespeare, Generation X quotes TV commercials, Scooby Doo cartoons, Star Wars, and bad sitcoms. Generation X is probably the most insincere generation ever, detaching themselves and calling themselves "ironic", when all they really do is indulge in pretentious pseudo-intellectualism. Is this film an accurate portrayal of them? Yes, in some ways. Is the film worth watching? Yeah, at least once. Stiller gives a decent performance, it's nicely shot, and Garofalo actually almost gives her slacker character depth. This is probably due to the fact that Garofalo actually has some substance herself, as opposed to the character she plays. Check it out more as an artifact of its time more than a cool film.

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: Just Say No, Cuz! . This movie provides ample proof that LSD usage does affect the minds of the unborn. Grateful Dead legend Jerry Garcia's daughter made this amateurish home video. While the topic of genetically modified foods is interesting, this video comes off as terribly one-sided hatchet job on the biotech industry and U.S. agriculture, in general. Monsanto is the main target of this film's attacks, but no one from the company is ever allowed to respond to the claims that it is trying to monopolize the pesticide and seed industries by buying up potential competitors and registering for patents on thousands of genetically engineered plant products. Instead, we're treated to the overzealous opinions of a few blowhards who don't have any idea of how to encourage research, development, and innovation in agriculture. The vague term of "biodiversity" is mentioned as some kind of virtue, but no explains its benefits. Actually, everyone is allowed to whine in this movie, from farmers to activists, but no one is ever allowed to respond to attacks. In one sequence, a farmer criticizes Monsanto. In another sequence, the U.S. government is criticized for subsidizing farmers (nevermind that every major industrial power subsidizes its farmers). Why not ask the farmer if he's dependent on government handouts, and how he justifies such subsidies? Why should farmers be immune to criticism? Please, let's get into the mix a little bit, and get to the bottom of these controveries!

SOLUTION: NEG

PROBLEM: Pointless . The first third of the movie consists primarily of guests and hosts of a party greeting each other, and, as such, is unavoidably boring. The second third of the movie features a game of charades, which is embarrassing. The final third of the movie, though often self-indulgently mediocre, does possess some tension and drama, though it's largely derived from people's being mean to each other. Not my idea of a good time

SOLUTION:
NEG