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: So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: That's what the title should be, anyway.This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.What happens in the movie? People die.Is that it? Yes.What is the plot about? What plot?What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made". Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext  just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago  and without needlessly humiliating his actors.4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]:
yes