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: CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10) Question: is it a negative review?
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: This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

yes