instruction:
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: I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes

question:
Review: While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching "Lost", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1the one with the polar-bearand it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster."Lost" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchinglywhat drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But "Lost" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of "Lost" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot. About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.But assuming the writers do pull this off, "Lost" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.9/10 Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes

question:
Review: This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simplebut weirdly obfuscatedthread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake. You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture. What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and televisionor, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes