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: Mario Lanza, of course, is "The Great Caruso" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from "Lucia" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in "Girl of the Golden West," There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during "L'Elisir d'amore" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen "suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband," that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film "Match Point" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in "The Great Caruso" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
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: THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance. Question: is it a negative review?

A:
yes
****