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: "Welcome to Collingwood" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film "Big Deal on Madonna Street", directed by Mario Monicelli.The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end! Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

no