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".

Review: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood "9th Gate."If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all at all except a redhead wig.I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; "Rear Window." The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine. Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. Question: is it a positive review?
yes

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?
no

Review: Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face. Question: is it a positive review?
yes