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: SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final cliched explanation of his psychosis, right out of 'Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, 'Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties ('The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer: no

Question: Review: "Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer: yes

Question: Review: Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way "upatz." He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as "media." He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from "Antigone," which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, "I hate her." She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in "Repulsion." The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.Worth it. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer:
yes