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: 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?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: In this little film we have some great characters but a very shallow plot. It is actually nice to watch because Singleton does a great job at presenting the esoteric conflicts and the interpersonal relationships. This makes the viewer forget the nonexistent realism that this movie supposedly is for. In fact what we have here is all the possible cliches and stereotypes put on celluloid in a rate higher than that of a soap. Definitely not a deep movie (even if it wants to be), but better than an average college movie. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
yes