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: This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no

Question: Review: I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.rating: 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no

Question: Review: About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys? Question: is it a positive review?

Answer:
no