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: If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen! Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film."Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
no