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: this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Besides all of the technical mistakes ....How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D Question: is it a negative review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a positive review?

A:
no
****