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: (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibusan anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate talesPeter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho' We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. The four stories  chapters if you will  in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly originalbut it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and  even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new  this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the filmher cleavage in particular. No doubt about itThe House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may notrepeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.I know I didn't.Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION:
yes