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: When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the "Sesame Street/Muppets" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone "I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says "I think we're engaged now"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway "wink wink" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on "kid-level cheesy" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw "10"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie". Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: `Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary  and inferior  but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr.  knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

no