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: That 70s Show is the best TV show ever, period. It's up there with the Andy Griffen Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Simpsons in my book. That 70s Show continued on for 8 seasons, all of which focus around a group of teenagers/young adults dealing with relationships, separating from their parents, and their overall futures.The two main characters, Eric and Donna, are two teenagers living next door to each other. They have been living next door to each other for most of their lives, and just begin to feel more feelings for each other at the beginning of the first season. A large amount of the show revolves around how their relationship is working.Two other characters, Red and Kitty, are Eric's parents. Red was in the service, so he really pushes Eric around. Kitty is just the opposite. Even though she drinks heavily, she treats Eric and his friends with a lot of care. Bob, their neighbor, is obviously Donna's Dad. Bob giggles around with several different women throughout the coarse of the show's story. Bob also annoys Red to his full extent.The remaining character, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie, are Eric's friends. They also play a major role in the show's story.Well, the First Season is great. This is when the characters are beginning to feel new things for each other. The First Season is original, funny, and enjoyable.The Second Season is good, although it isn't as good as the first. It is a basic continuation of the First. Eric and Donna are together, and everything is working out great.The Third Season is my favorite. It went back and captured the First Season feel and humor. I also think that the character chemistry improved a bunch, making the show all that more fun to watch.The Fourth Season isn't near as good. Eric and Donna Arne't together in this one, making the show slightly less pleasurable. It is still funny, although I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons.The Fifth Season is the last season I enjoyed all the way through. It is the gang's Senior Year, so that really helps with the story. The Fifth Season also had the best ending out of all the seasons.The Sixth Season is good for the most part. It is extremely funny, although it doesn't capture the feel that the other seasons did. The gang is out of High School, so I believe that it didn't hit the teen feel that the previous seasons did. I also didn't like the last three or four episodes considering that they had a major drama feel to them.The Seventh Season captures the same feel that the 5th season had in a way, although it didn't do it all the way. I enjoyed the Seventh Season as I did all the others, and the ending is great.The Last Season flat out sucked. Eric wasn't in it, which ruined it. Kelso wasn't in it for the most part either, which didn't help. I hated the Eighth Season up until the last episode. I thought that the last episode was really good, and a fitting ending to the series.So overall, if you enjoy comedy, give That 70s Show a try. They stopped making new episodes, but it is still on TV a bunch. I also recommend buying Seasons 1-7. It is up to you if you want to buy Season 8. Question: is it a positive review?
yes

Review: ****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time. Question: is it a positive review?

no

