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: First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.What a sad waste. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: 1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP). Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
no