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: I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: 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?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: I approach films about talking animals with care. For every wonderful one like Babe, you get an equally poor one like the dreadful remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. Or in the case of Cats & Dogs, you have a great idea for a film not living up to its potential. When I heard about Paulie, the premise of a wisecracking parrot didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But I found the film a pleasant surprise. And it manages to sneak its way into your heart without you realising.A Russian janitor, Misha Vilyenkov (Tony Shaloub) gets a job in a research laboratory. One day, he hears singing coming from the basement. And when he investigates, he finds a parrot in its cage singing its little heart out. Misha becomes fascinated with the bird, especially when it turns out the parrot can not only sing, it can talk. And not a few phrases either. Its a parrot you can actually make conversation with.The parrot is called Paulie (voiced by Jay Mohr), and recognises a fellow castaway in Misha. Wondering how this world to the wise bird ended up in a dusty basement, Misha convinces Paulie to tell him his life story. Which all began when he was a baby, and in the care of Marie, a five year old girl with a stutter. The two of them became birds of a feather (OK, bad pun!).When Marie's parents became concerned about her close friendship with a bird, they considered sending him away. And they finally did after Marie nearly injured herself in a fall after teaching Paulie to fly. Desperate to be reunited with her, Paulie begins a long journey across America, which includes a diverse number of new owners, flying great distances, and even ending up behind bars. Of a cage that is!Paulie was one of a number of talking animal films released by DreamWorks in the late 90s. And although it wasn't afforded the same recognition or box-office success of Babe, Paulie succeeds on quite a few levels, and is an occasional work of striking intelligence.Jay Mohr's stand-up style of acting is well suited to the part of Paulie. He never plays the part as too smug, even if he is a bit of a smart Aleck. Paulie's worldly, but he is also naive in his way.Because he's lived a rather sheltered life with Marie, when he's taken away, he has to fend for himself for the first time. And when he falls into the hands of different owners, they make promises to Paulie to reunite him with Marie, which he believes. Only for those promises to be broken time and again.Paulie is admittedly a little episodic. It follows the eclectic people Paulie ends up with, and how he slowly gets brought closer and closer to Marie. He first winds up in a pawn shop, where he is adopted by Ivy (Gena Rowlands), a kindly woman who teaches him the meaning of manners. She sympathises with Paulie's situation, and drives an RV across America to find Marie.Paulie is an occasionally very touching film. His scenes with Ivy are some of the best. Wonderful moments of Paulie perched on her shoulder singing Tom Jones numbers. The way she instills in him the need for hope is great, and some of the dialogue is quite well written and even thought-provoking: "There are things in life you put off, because you think you're gonna do them later. But the real thing Ivy taught me is you gotta live like there may not be a later."The scene where Ivy passes away en route leaving Paulie all alone is a very heart-rending moment. And the sequence where he plucks up the courage to fly for the first time across the Grand Canyon, soaring majestically is such a beautifully composed scene it stays with you for hours after the film's over.Despite the occasional sad moment, there are plenty of laughs to be had. Paulie falls in with a group of performing parrots at a Spanish outdoor restaurant. The animatronic effects here are really excellent as four birds do a perfectly choreographed dance number. And Paulie even gets to have a romance. Which is dashed when he falls in with a petty thief (played by Mohr as well). That may be the only complaint I have. As soon as you get comfortable with one situation, the film then moves Paulie on to another.The scene where Paulie is taught to steal money from ATM machines is funny, but a little disturbing too. I'm amazed DreamWorks were granted the chance to include such a scene in a kids film. And Paulie's diamond robbery is very Mission Impossible. He's caught in the act, and shipped off to the lab for animal testing, where he's remained ever since.The story finally comes full circle at the lab, where Misha vows to help Paulie. Of course they do find Marie. But the final revelation is a scene of such shocking intensity, I was left numb for several minutes. Paulie may never get the longevity Babe has, but I believe its an equally brilliant film. The same laughs. The same flawless effects. And the same surprising intelligence.A minor gem. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION:
no