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: 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 positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes