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: What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.Awful.Ridiculous.Waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: "Kolchak: the Night Stalker" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead? That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.I'll address the question of Kolchak being "formula" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include: Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the "Omen" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.) Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!) On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on "Buffy." McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]:
no