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: Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes