TASK DEFINITION: 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".
PROBLEM: Review: It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end. Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it". I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION:
no