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: Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine. Question: is it a negative review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal  marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches  but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star  Franchot Tone  packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor  he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead  Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945)  is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr.  the genre's quintessential fall guy  as an ill-fated "ladies' man" of a percussionist.Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction  all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York  which results in his being mowed down by a car! Notable, too, is the trial sequence  which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone "dizzy spells". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt  and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film  in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater  the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: May contain spoilers.I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes. Question: is it a negative review?

A:
yes
****