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: Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION: no

PROBLEM: Review: What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it. Question: is it a negative review?

SOLUTION: yes

PROBLEM: Review: An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be. In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color. Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen. Question: is it a positive review?

SOLUTION:
yes