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".

[Q]: Review: After the success of the second instalment, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton decided that Blackadder should have a third appearance. This time instead of Tudor times or Elizabethan times, Edmund Blackadder (BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson) is living in the time of the French Revolution. Accompanied by the now stupid but lovable Baldrick (Tony Robinson) Blackadder is the "faithful" butler to George, the Prince Regent of Wales (Hugh Laurie). Throughout this third series to the wonderfully written sitcom Blackadder tries everything he can to get rich and powerful. He tries electing a lord for a rotten borough, tries to sell a book, tries to win a bet about The Scarlet Pimpernel, tries to be a highway man and finally poses as the Prince. This is a very good instalment to the popular comedy. Includes appearances from Robbie Coltrane, Tim McInnerny, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Fry. It won the BAFTA for Best Comedy Series, and it was nominated for Best Design and Best Make Up. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and Blackadder (all four series) was number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom. Outstanding! Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the "special effects" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
no