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 Input:
What a soundtrack. Too bad the movie couldn't keep up. . This movie is one of cinema history's seminal examples of a soundtrack carrying a movie to success. "Saturday Night Fever" from a few years before is another example, but that movie could actually stand on its own. Jennifer Beales' torn neck sweater and table dancing routine aside, I don't think this one could. I understand this movie is near and dear to the hearts of a lot of 80's children, and I will agree this is one of the all-time great soundtracks of cinema. The problem is, the movie's plot is a slow-moving, wasted opportunity. Physically, Beales is sexy enough to keep your attention, and her portrayal of working-class girl in a man's job striving to express herself was a pretty novel idea when this movie was made. But her unsympathetic personality and mediocre acting undermine her character. Come to think of it, the acting all around is a bit weak. But that's not the problem. The movie suffers from two fatal let-downs. The first is the plot itself. Feminism-affirming depictions aside, it's pretty simplistic, unimaginative stuff, even for a dance movie. What's worse is how slow it all moves. The drama sequences in-between dances drag on, straining your patience and sympathy for the character's plights. The other more tragic flaw, since it is a movie about dance, is the cinematography. While it's certainly not the worst cinematography ever, (check out "the Limey" next time you want a headache.) the dance sequences look like they've been salvaged from scraps on the cutting room floor. We're supposed to be moved by Beales' character's natural talent, but for most of the movie we never get to see her do much except walk and pose in a crazy mashup of bad edits. By the time the final dance scene finally comes along, the drama of her audition performance is ruined by drawn-out, bad editing. It almost seems the judges let her into Juliard simply because she was able to stay in the air for longer than a minute. Perhaps I'm a purist for asking for good dancing onscreen to consist of more than rapid-fire editing. But if it's a movie about dancing, one would think the least they could do is show dancing. Many movies before and after Flashdance managed to get this right ("Saturday Night Fever" certainly did, to its great success), but maybe nobody told this movie's director. It's a shame

Ex Output:
NEG

Ex Input:
I walked out of the Theater on this flick.... . I was a Sophomore in HS and went to this cartoon with my cousins, What a mistake! I walked out and sat in the car till it was over. It was awful. I think it is sick that even grown ups think this is so amusing to watch cartoon characters have sex. I wouldn't even rate it a "1" star. More like Zero Stars

Ex Output:
NEG

Ex Input:
Triple-Feature Delight! . The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of my favorite stories, and this DVD contains two excellent film versions-- three, if one counts the Bugs Bunny Jekyll-Hyde animated short, which is definitely a bonus! The Audio Commentary is also an excellent feature, as it delivers a lot of fascinating information regarding both versions featured on this DVD as well as the John Barrymore version from the 1920's. Now for the main features: The 1930's version with Fredric March is highly entertaining, and although it certainly fits the mold of a "creature feature," it carries with it an intelligence that distinguishes it from a typical monster flick. Fredric March himself is excellent in the dual role of the saint-like (and eventually tortured) Dr. Jekyll and the initially humorous, but ultimately horrifically sadistic Mr. Hyde. The ape-like Hyde make-up in this film is excellent, especially for its time, but the transformation sequence is even more impressive, as it is done fairly realistically. Also, the film sticks to the basic storyline, and the use of the fiance/dancer dichotomy adds an interesting twist to the "strange case." This is a must-see for all fans of horror movies, especially those who enjoy classic horror films. The 1940's version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde with Spencer Tracy is also a highly entertaining and excellent film. There are those who do not consider this a horror film-- I would have to disagree with them completely. Although this film is a rather lush production of the Jekyll/Hyde story, Spencer Tracy's Hyde ends up being rather horrific in his character, all because of an effective portrayal by a more-than-capable actor. He (Tracy) manages to add a more humorous touch to both personalities (Jekyll and Hyde), and his Jekyll seems genuinely exhausted from the numerous misdeeds of his alter ego. As for the Hyde make-up, it is considerably more human-looking than the Fredric March version, but this does not make it any less effective. In keeping with the tradition of the 1930's version, Tracy's Hyde begins as a somewhat more brutish-looking man who bears relatively little resemblance to the actor, but gets increasingly hideous as the film progresses; as his deeds get worse and worse, this Mr. Hyde becomes exactly what he's meant to be: a monster, both in character and appearance. True, Mr. Hyde may not be a typical role for actor Spencer Tracy, but his excellent performance shows that he is far from miscast. Also, this version follows the basic story format as well, which qualifies it as a good adaptation of the original story. This DVD is an excellent buy, and any purchaser will definitely get more bang for his or her buck!

Ex Output:
POS