Input: LONDON, England (CNN) -- The most eagerly anticipated animated film this year hits big screens this weekend, as "The Simpsons Movie" opens worldwide. The Screening Room spoke to creator Matt Groening and writer Al Jean in London about everyone's favorite two-dimensional yellow family. Simpsons supremo Matt Groening with his creations at the film's premiere in Springfield, Vermont Matt Groening told the Screening Room that fans had driven the demand for the movie. "We've had fans clamoring for a movie for the past 18 years," he said. The film has taken four years to come to fruition, as writer Al Jean explained. "What really held us up for a long time was to have enough people to do the show and the movie," he said. "We talked for a while about doing the movie after the show is done, but the show is never done! So it really started in earnest in 2003, when we started working on this story that became the movie." Technology has also played its part. Jean continued, "The technology to do this film really wasn't even around five years ago. For example, there was this joke I once pitched and David Silverman, the director, started drawing and as I was pitching it, it went into the film and it was cut a day later. To go from pitch to cut in two days is pretty impressive." Its creators hope that "The Simpsons Movie" will both satisfy long-term fans and bring Homer and Marge's family to a new audience. Groening told the Screening Room, "This movie is designed to both honor the people who have loved the show all this time, so there's lots of little details for them in the movie, little characters and stuff who they know and love, but we also want people who don't know the family to not be completely confused. It is a complete movie experience, but again, we have a lot of little details that only the really, true die-hard fans are going to get." And fans can expect to be entertained by plenty of cartoon mishaps. Groening said, "When you see somebody fall off the roof in a live-action film, it's funny -- we all love it. But it's not as funny as when Homer falls off the roof.

Does the response "two-dimensional yellow family" correctly answer the question "What was the name of the interviewing entity that spoke with the film's creator?"?
***
Output: no

Input: { { lang } } centers on a man who roams the street night after night . Hidden under his hat and rain jacket he strives for one goal : to find the culprit - the one whom he can make responsible for his suffering . If he wanted to , he could confront him , but he lacks the audacity to do so . He considers suicide , but his courage fails him once again . The options do not appear to present him with a way out and would not personally satisfy him . Finley blames not himself , but only others . In this case he looks to his girlfriend , Violet . He drowns Violet in the bath whilst giving her a massage , Which had become a common ritual for them . On one hand he does this out of malice , on the other to be close to her just one more time . Through this action he wishes to break the growing distance he has come to feel between them , though the actual outcome is the infliction of the greatest possible loneliness , as he turns into a monster . Finley only realizes with hindsight that his misdeeds far surpass those of Violet .

Does the response "Because his courage fails him the way it does to confront the culprit" correctly answer the question "Why doesn't Finley end his suffering by committing suicide?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website.

Does the response "Michael Moore" correctly answer the question "Who are the "evildoers du jour" that received $245 Million from the US Government?"?
***
Output: no

Input: The second major point on which the principals had agreed on March 10 was the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their fund-raising. The embassy bombings of 1998 had focused attention on al Qaeda's finances. One result had been the creation of an NSC-led interagency committee on terrorist financing. On its recommendation, the President had designated Bin Laden and al Qaeda as subject to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This gave theTreasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the ability to search for and freeze any Bin Laden or al Qaeda assets that reached the U.S. financial system. But since OFAC had little information to go on, few funds were frozen. In July 1999, the President applied the same designation to the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. Here, OFAC had more success. It blocked more than $34 million in Taliban assets held in U.S. banks. Another $215 million in gold and $2 million in demand deposits, all belonging to the Afghan central bank and held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were also frozen. After October 1999, when the State Department formally designated al Qaeda a "foreign terrorist organization," it became the duty of U.S. banks to block its transactions and seize its funds. Neither this designation nor UN sanctions had much additional practical effect; the sanctions were easily circumvented, and there were no multilateral mechanisms to ensure that other countries' financial systems were not used as conduits for terrorist funding. Attacking the funds of an institution, even the Taliban, was easier than finding and seizing the funds of a clandestine worldwide organization like al Qaeda. Although the CIA's Bin Laden unit had originally been inspired by the idea of studying terrorist financial links, few personnel assigned to it had any experience in financial investigations. Any terrorist-financing intelligence appeared to have been collected collaterally, as a consequence of gathering other intelligence. This attitude may have stemmed in large part from the chief of this unit, who did not believe that simply following the money from point A to point B revealed much about the terrorists' plans and intentions. As a result, the CIA placed little emphasis on terrorist financing. Nevertheless, the CIA obtained a general understanding of how al Qaeda raised money.

Does the response "Friend of Binalshibh" correctly answer the question "Why did the CIA place little emphasis on investigating terrorist funding?"?
***
Output:
no