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".
--------
Question: Review: My kids recently started watching the reruns of this show - both the early episodes on the N, and the later ones on ABC Family - and they love it. (I wasn't aware the show had even lasted past the first or second season) I'm curious as to what prompted all of the cast changes - I've seen them described as "highly publicized," and yet a half hours searching efforts on the web have revealed nothing but endless comments on how the early episodes were so much better than the later episodes. (Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference - the scripts and themes remain largely the same throughout - but they do lose some great people along the way) My daughter has put the DVDs on her wish list, so perhaps the land of special features and commentary will shed some light on all of this. I also wish they'd done some self-referential humor about the changes - like on "Boy Meets World" where they drop the little sister for an entire season or so, and when a different actor later shows up playing her, they ask her where she's been and she says "upstairs," or when early series token geek "Minkus" shows up for the high school graduation, they ask him where he's been and he says "over there," pointing to the part of the classroom never shown by the camera, before saying "Hey, Mr. Turner, wait up!" and running off screen (Mr. turner being another character who left) Oh well - maybe there will be an E true Hollywood story on this or something? I was just glad to see Aunt Hilda show up for the finale - she was always one of my favorites - it's too bad it couldn't have been a more encompassing cast reunion. (The Zelda candle just didn't cut it for me) Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no


Question: Review: I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer: no


Question: Review: Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel ("The Usual Suspects", "Three Kings") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of "THE EVIL DEAD" films and "The Gift", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer:
no