TASK DEFINITION: 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".
PROBLEM: Review: Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn Bunny Comes Home gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true then, the future we spin into again is fantastical now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane how expensive, blissfully optimistic still, "You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true" Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby"  one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples"  but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance  undoubtedly the low point of his career  is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION:
yes