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: Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie "Darkness Falls", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: (48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet."Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION:
yes