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: I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love "Pushing Daisies" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on "Pushing Daisies" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen "P.D.", I highly recommend watching it! Question: is it a positive review?
answer:

yes