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".

[EX Q]: Review: Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: This is a thoroughly diabolical tale of just how bad things can go wrong. A simple robbery. Pick up some serious change. Get our finances together and everything will be hunky-dory. Butmom and pop's jewelry store? No problem. Insurance pays for it all. No guns. Nobody gets hurt. Easy money.Older, more successful (it would appear) brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has a few minor problems. Heroin addiction, cocaine habituation. A wife (Marisa Tomei) thatwell, he can't seem to perform for. His flat belly days long gone. Younger, sweet, slightly dim-witted younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) with a few dinero problems of his own. Behind in child support payments for his daughter, in debt to friends and relatives, not exactly wowing them in the work of work, etc.Sydney Lumet, in this performance at the age of 82 (!), directs and gets it 99.99 percent right, which is hard to do in a thriller. I have seen more thrillers than I can remember and most of the time the director gets the movie printed and lives with the plot holes, the improbabilities, the cheesy scenes, and the hurry-up ending. Here Lumet makes a thriller like it's a work of art. Every detail is perfect. The acting is superb. The plot has no holes. The story rings true and clear and represents a tale about human frailty that would honor the greatest filmmakers and even the Bard himself.Hoffman of course is excellent. When you don't have marquee, leading man presence, you have to get by on talent, workmanship and pure concentration. Ethan Hawke, who is no stranger to the sweet, little guy role, adds a layer of desperation and all too human incompetence to the part so that we don't know whether to pity him or trash him. Albert Finney plays the father of the wayward sons with a kind of steely intensity that belies his age. And Marisa Tomei, who has magical qualities of sexiness to go along with her unique creativity, manages to be both vulnerable and hard as nails as Andy's two timing wife. (But who could blame her?) It's almost a movie reviewer's sacrilege to give a commercial thriller five or ten stars, but if you study this film, as all aspiring film makers would be well advised to do, you will notice the kind of excessive (according to most Hollywood producers) attention to detail that makes for real art--the sort of thing that only great artists can do, and indeed cannot help but do. (By the way, I think there were twenty producers on this filmwell, maybe a dozen; check the credits.) All I can say in summation is, Way to go Sydney Lumet, author of a slew of excellent films, and to show such fidelity to your craft and your art at such an advanced agekudos. May we all do half so well.Okay, the 00.01 percent. It was unlikely that the father (Albert Finney) could have followed the cabs that Andy took around New York without somehow losing the tail. This is minor, and I wish all thrillers could have so small a blip. Also one wonders why Lumet decided not to tell us about the fate of Hank at the end. We can guess and guess. Perhaps his fate fell onto the cutting room floor. Perhaps Lumet was not satisfied with what was filmed and time ran out, and he just said, "Leave it like that. It really doesn't matter." And I think it doesn't. What happens to Hank is not going to be good. He isn't the kind of guy who manages to run off to Mexico and is able to start a new life. He is the kind of guy who gets a "light" sentence of 10 to 20 and serves it and comes out a kind of shrunken human being who knows he wasn't really a man when he should have been.See this for Sidney Lumet, one of Hollywood's best, director of The Pawnbroker (1964), The Group (1966), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976), and many more. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
yes