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: Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME! Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching "Lost", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1the one with the polar-bearand it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster."Lost" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchinglywhat drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But "Lost" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of "Lost" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive)  these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot. About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character)  well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.But assuming the writers do pull this off, "Lost" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.9/10 Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION:
no