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: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers  not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure  you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood "9th Gate."If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all  at all except a redhead wig.I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; "Rear Window." The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine. Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is "Tom Brown" and his main rival, "Bob" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]:
no