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: 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: Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them."Wilder Napalm" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics. Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire! Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. "Wilder Napalm" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.Give this one a look... Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

no