instruction:
In this task, you are given a review of a movie and a boolean question whether this review has positive sentiment or negative sentiment. Your task is to generate answer "yes" when the tweet has that particular sentiment, otherwise generate answer "no".
question:
Review: This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

no