instruction:
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: The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. "My name's Shocky," says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary? Question: is it a positive review?
answer:

yes