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: STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that "Lili Marleen" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's "women movies" like "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (1979) and "Lola" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that "stories can be told much better with women than with men", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, "women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play "The City, the Garbage and the Death" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title "Shadow of Angels" (1976).Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their "misuse" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because "good" and "bad" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent! Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

yes