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".

Q: Review: ****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? Question: is it a positive review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. Question: is it a positive review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell. Question: is it a negative review?

A:
yes
****