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: This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the "ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no

question:
Review: Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
yes

question:
Review: The Shining is a weird example of adaptation: it has very little in common with the source novel, written by Stephen King, yet it is widely remembered as one of the best cinematic renditions of the horror master's work. This is due to two factors: Stanley Kubrick's masterful direction and Jack Nicholson's chilly acting.Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a writer who accepts to take care of the Overlook Hotel in Canada during the winter period, unaffected by the gruesome stories surrounding the place: he claims a nice, isolated location is just what he needs to finish his new book. Therefore the Overlook becomes the new home of the Torrance family: Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their five-year old son Danny (Danny Lloyd). The boy in particular senses right from the beginning that something's wrong: he has been told by the cook, Dick O' Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) that he is endowed with a mysterious psychic energy, the titular Shining, which allows people like him and Dick to see flashes from the past and the future, among other things. Because of this "gift", the forces that inhabit the hotel immediately take an interest in Danny, even though he is quite capable of resisting them. That is not Jack's case, however, as he gets increasingly paranoid regarding his wife's affections and seeks comfort in the company of what can best be defined as ghosts, triggering a chain of insanity and dread which is very hard to break.The Shining works as a horror movie because Kubrick, though having never worked on this kind of film before, knew exactly what was effective and what wasn't, hence the larger focus on atmosphere and psychological shocks than gore and creative bloodbaths. King criticized the director for changing most of the story, omitting most of the Jack/Danny subplot (merely hinted at in the film) that led to the book's emotionally strong climax, and while his disappointment is valid, the omission was actually necessary: the novel dealt with redemption, albeit in an unconventional way, and redemption is a theme Kubrick, one of the most famous analysts of human decay, never had a soft spot for. What he is interested in is the mental, and subsequently physical, unbalance that threatens the characters, and he keeps the creepy tone even thanks to a very cold approach and expert use of the steadicam shot (Danny's encounter with two ghostly twins being the best example).Another criticism King raised was about the actors, especially Nicholson: in the writer's opinion, his trademark grin at the start of the movie seemed to indicate Jack already was insane, thus undermining the rest of the story. Now, it is true that Nicholson looks a bit goofy from the very beginning, but it is equally true that Martin Sheen (King's ideal choice for the role) probably would not have been able to deliver a performance as terrifying as Nicholson's: from the moment he starts grinning in a more unsettling way than before to the immortal "Here's Johnny!" scene, it is impossible to picture another actor playing that part, and even though the TV version of The Shining from 1997 isn't bad the Torrance character is indelibly linked to the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest star. As for Duvall and Lloyd, both add terrific support, the latter especially deserving a place alongside Harvey Stephens (The Omen's Damien) and Haley Joel Osment as cinema's great horror child icons. One might complain about Duvall being completely different from the book counterpart (blonde and beautiful) and not having much else to do but scream and run, but two things ought to be considered: a) back in 1980 the "scream queen" cliche wasn't one yet; b) rarely has any actress looked so genuinely terrified on camera, making the book-movie differences secondary compared to the real fear that emerges from Wendy's eyes.Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting, once said there is no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation of any literary work (and he should know, given the liberties Danny Boyle took when his junkie masterpiece was brought to the screen), yet that doesn't mean the movie is necessarily bad. The Shining proves said point to perfection: very little from the novel, approximately 5%, is included in the film, but in Kubrick and Nichlolson's hands this masterclass in loose cinematic translation becomes one of the finest, most original horror pictures of all time, which really is saying something given the genre's current poor form. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no