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: Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters. Question: is it a negative review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the "U.S. backed, Latin American coup", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage! The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of "American politics". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it! Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****