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: 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?

Answer: no


Question: Review: For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: yes


Question: Review: Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer:
no