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: James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads "Deliverance", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were "Patton", "Papillon", and "All the President's Men"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no

Question: Review: This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star Franchot Tone packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945) is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr. the genre's quintessential fall guy as an ill-fated "ladies' man" of a percussionist.Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York which results in his being mowed down by a car! Notable, too, is the trial sequence which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone "dizzy spells". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no

Question: Review: There are just so many things wrong with this movie.To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer:
yes