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".

Q: Review: If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. Question: is it a positive review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone. Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****