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: I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.[spoilers follow]Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, "He's finally snapped" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, "He drowned in his pool last night" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his "collecting trip" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: This is a thoroughly diabolical tale of just how bad things can go wrong. A simple robbery. Pick up some serious change. Get our finances together and everything will be hunky-dory. Butmom and pop's jewelry store? No problem. Insurance pays for it all. No guns. Nobody gets hurt. Easy money.Older, more successful (it would appear) brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has a few minor problems. Heroin addiction, cocaine habituation. A wife (Marisa Tomei) thatwell, he can't seem to perform for. His flat belly days long gone. Younger, sweet, slightly dim-witted younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) with a few dinero problems of his own. Behind in child support payments for his daughter, in debt to friends and relatives, not exactly wowing them in the work of work, etc.Sydney Lumet, in this performance at the age of 82 (!), directs and gets it 99.99 percent right, which is hard to do in a thriller. I have seen more thrillers than I can remember and most of the time the director gets the movie printed and lives with the plot holes, the improbabilities, the cheesy scenes, and the hurry-up ending. Here Lumet makes a thriller like it's a work of art. Every detail is perfect. The acting is superb. The plot has no holes. The story rings true and clear and represents a tale about human frailty that would honor the greatest filmmakers and even the Bard himself.Hoffman of course is excellent. When you don't have marquee, leading man presence, you have to get by on talent, workmanship and pure concentration. Ethan Hawke, who is no stranger to the sweet, little guy role, adds a layer of desperation and all too human incompetence to the part so that we don't know whether to pity him or trash him. Albert Finney plays the father of the wayward sons with a kind of steely intensity that belies his age. And Marisa Tomei, who has magical qualities of sexiness to go along with her unique creativity, manages to be both vulnerable and hard as nails as Andy's two timing wife. (But who could blame her?) It's almost a movie reviewer's sacrilege to give a commercial thriller five or ten stars, but if you study this film, as all aspiring film makers would be well advised to do, you will notice the kind of excessive (according to most Hollywood producers) attention to detail that makes for real art--the sort of thing that only great artists can do, and indeed cannot help but do. (By the way, I think there were twenty producers on this filmwell, maybe a dozen; check the credits.) All I can say in summation is, Way to go Sydney Lumet, author of a slew of excellent films, and to show such fidelity to your craft and your art at such an advanced agekudos. May we all do half so well.Okay, the 00.01 percent. It was unlikely that the father (Albert Finney) could have followed the cabs that Andy took around New York without somehow losing the tail. This is minor, and I wish all thrillers could have so small a blip. Also one wonders why Lumet decided not to tell us about the fate of Hank at the end. We can guess and guess. Perhaps his fate fell onto the cutting room floor. Perhaps Lumet was not satisfied with what was filmed and time ran out, and he just said, "Leave it like that. It really doesn't matter." And I think it doesn't. What happens to Hank is not going to be good. He isn't the kind of guy who manages to run off to Mexico and is able to start a new life. He is the kind of guy who gets a "light" sentence of 10 to 20 and serves it and comes out a kind of shrunken human being who knows he wasn't really a man when he should have been.See this for Sidney Lumet, one of Hollywood's best, director of The Pawnbroker (1964), The Group (1966), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976), and many more. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
no