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: Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit). Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: When a movie shocks you with it's disturbing, brooding atmosphere, and grabs you by the throat with it's stunning cinematography, you just know that you have stumbled upon a treat, masterpiece of a film. Although with most modern movies, extremely enjoyable as some are, those that really shock you into focus are the strongest, and are the ones that are most critically acclaimed and mostly, stick with you for a life time. I say, proudly, that I am a fan of movies that disturb, not just horror movies, but those that send a vibe laden with foreboding. Movies like Breakdown and The Missing, that send a chill down your spine, making you think "holy crap, that could happen to me", and visually entice you, are up there with some of my favorite aspects in a movie. Because I am only 21, I did not grow up with actors like Burt Renyolds, Jon Voight and Ned Beatty, albeit I am familiar with them, I didn't watch them grow and proceed as actors, as opposed to actors now like Shia LaBouf and Justin Long. I must say, after the long hype and witnessing Deliverance for the first time, I was so admired by these veteran actors in a movie made more than 30 years ago, and still lives it's terror up in competition to modern movies. Burt Renyolds plays Lewis, the macho self appointed leader of a group of four friends on a canoe trip down a fictitious river before a dam is made, filling the whole wilderness in water. Renyolds' character is an experienced adventurer, sort of no nonsense, and filled with machismo. Witnessing him portray the tough guy, made me think differently about him as an actor, as i have only seen him as a seedy old guy or an angry politician. The dialog the director provides for his character gives him enough malice to be proved as a strong and even intimidating leader. Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty play as the novice adventurers, Drew and Bob respectively, joining in for the fun of a canoe trip. The actor that i thoroughly enjoyed watching was Jon Voight, once again I have only seen him as an older actor, however, unlike Renyolds, I have quite liked Voight's acting (and i don't regard Anaconda when I say that), for example the national treasure movies. Voight plays Ed, whom, like Lewis, is experienced in adventuring but is seen as a more reserved character, a reluctant hero/ leader and definitely lacks Lewis' machismo. The film basically opens up with the four driving into a small town while asking to find someone to drive their cars to the bottom of the river whilst they canoe the rapids and camp along the riverside. You immediately get a creepy vibe from the hillbilly characters we are introduced to, like the imbred kid who plays the infamous "Duelling Banjo's" at the start of the film with Ronny Cox's character Drew; and more so the two mountain men in the films pivotal and disturbing rape scene. As with all atmospheric movies, from this moment on, dread and confusion fills the characters as well as the audience and it is here we see the characters take shape and change form. The canoe trip that follows is expertly shot and it is from here the men fight against both human and nature's odds for survival. The film's cinematics do not let up, and I back that comment up with the scene in which Ed fights one of the rapist mountain men with a composite bow. As Ed falls on to one of his arrows and notices his enemy approaching him, cocks his rifle, only to shoot the floor as he falls with an arrow in his neck; was possible the greatest piece of cinematic shooting I have seen in a film. In wrapping up, Deliverance is one film, who's dread and atmosphere carry the mood across and to this date, remains one of the best films in cinematic history. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:

yes