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).

Q: Terrible-don't waste your money . This supposed 'language lab' is VERY poorly designed. The dvd consists of images of items with a nursery rhyme or poem being recited in another language. The amazing thing is that the item shown has no relation to the words being spoken! It might as well be completely random sounds, since anyone who has studied child language acquisition knows that babies learn from making observations of language used in context. While I understand that supposedly this DVD is only intended to 'stimulate' the brain, by six months, a baby's brain has developed specifically to hone in on the sounds presented in his own native language, and to selectively ignore others. The brain continues to prune and forge neural networks in response to sounds from the language spoken in the home, thus the idea that random speech sounds are somehow beneficially stiumlating is invalid. A baby's brain becomes stimulated by the sounds that appear repeatedly in his own language. Habituation and imaging studies have shown this time and time again. Imagine if the baby's brain gave equal attention to any sound--the brain would waste valuable time and resources on information that would not be useful in learning to communicate with his caretakers. We acquire langauge so rapidly because the brain is selective. Babies depend heavily on repitition, adult modeling, observing cause and effect, and from watching other people's behaviors to learn language. The idea that your child with learn anything from just hearing forgien language sounds out of context is very silly. If you want your child to learn language sounds and words from a language not spoken in the home, try exposing him to another language speaker on a routine basis, or show him programs like Dora or Sesame Street, where there is lots of explicit context to help a baby infer meaning, clear annunciation, and repition.

A: NEG
****
Q: 2 Star Dud . After a man is caught cheating in a poker game a lynch party is formed and the man is murdered. Soon after the murderers begin dying violent and mysterious deaths. Dean Martin plays a ramblin' gambler in FIVE CARD STUD, a movie that probably didn't, but certainly could have, pounded the fatal nail into the traditional western before handing the franchise over to the Italians. Although it sells itself as a mystery/western - who's killing all these gambling varmints, anyhow? - a five-second study of the movie's poster will pretty much shuffle out who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, and who's going to ride into the sunset with Inger Stevens. I watched this movie the first time years and years ago, back in the knee-britches days. It's possible some of synapses fired and connected and I somehow, after a generation plus, remembered how the plot - and I use that term loosely - ran. I doubt it, though. FIVE CARD STUD doesn't bother itself with keeping an edge to the mystery. Robert Mitchum plays a gun-toting preacher who opens a church soon after the lynching occurs, Roddy McDowell is an angry young man with a chip on his shoulder. Katherine Justice plays the shapely tomboy sister of McDowell and Inger Stevens is wasted, again, as a hair-cutting floozie. Both women, of course, have lips puckered for the six-shootin' gambling man Martin. This one was pretty excruciating, and it's really tempting to blame it all on the bored, and boring, Martin. That's probably not fair, though. The script is murky, the dialogue laughable (at the wrong times,) and, like I said, the mystery is never all that much of a mystery. Martin, like Mitchum, was best in movies that let him play it laid-back and coolly bemused. He needs manic energy to react to - think Shirley MacLaine, a young Sally Fields, or even Jerry Lewis. He doesn't have the chops to carry a movie without someone like that, though. Mitchum could, but the movie doesn't put him at the center. It wouldn't matter anyway, because the only hope for this trite oater would be razing the story and starting over. About the only fun this one provides - besides a scene with Mitchum and Yaphet Kotto near the end - is trying to decide who looks more bored, Martin or Mitchum. My money's on Mitchum, but Martin gives him a go at it. A waste of a good cast, and, save for a scene or two, a waste of a viewer's time.

A: NEG
****
Q: Perfectly decent, perfectly inoffensive, and perfectly dull . Joel Hershman's "Greenfingers", starring the now-famous (and utterly gorgeous) Clive Owen and Helen Mirren, is a sweet, cutesy, and utterly empty British romantic comedy. In this forgettable, generic chick-flick, inmates at a British minimum-security prison take up gardening. Initially, they are understandably reluctant to garden. But, get this, gardening ends up changing their lives! And, after his parole, Owen's character even commits another crime just so he can go back to prison and garden! And Mirren's character is so impressed with the innmates' gardening that she even has them garden for her! Wow, where do people get this stuff? Of course, this being a "romantic comedy" and all, there is a romance between Owen and Mirren's daughter that is so incredibly forced, awkward, and contrived that one cannot help but cringe as the two actors attempt to gaze lustfully at each other. In addition, peppered throughout are moments of in-your-face sentimentality and supposed "uplifting moments". And none of it works. For all its good intentions, "Greenfingers" is as drab and colorless as the cinderblock walls of the inmates' rooms. It's all perfectly decent, perfectly inoffensive, and perfectly dull

A:
NEG
****