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: It looks to me as if the creators of "The Class Of Nuke 'Em High" wanted it to become a "cult" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody "Prison" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior "The Chair," John Saxon's enjoyably trashy "Death House," the passable psycho picture "Destroyer," and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of "Hey Micky" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), "Slaughterhouse rock" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime "Playboy" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

yes