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: The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? Do we need all the "in-jokes" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells "the Shape". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit). Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
yes