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 truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments  I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!)  but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing  2/10. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION:
no