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".
--------
Question: Review: The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer: no


Question: Review: My kids recently started watching the reruns of this show - both the early episodes on the N, and the later ones on ABC Family - and they love it. (I wasn't aware the show had even lasted past the first or second season) I'm curious as to what prompted all of the cast changes - I've seen them described as "highly publicized," and yet a half hours searching efforts on the web have revealed nothing but endless comments on how the early episodes were so much better than the later episodes. (Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference - the scripts and themes remain largely the same throughout - but they do lose some great people along the way) My daughter has put the DVDs on her wish list, so perhaps the land of special features and commentary will shed some light on all of this. I also wish they'd done some self-referential humor about the changes - like on "Boy Meets World" where they drop the little sister for an entire season or so, and when a different actor later shows up playing her, they ask her where she's been and she says "upstairs," or when early series token geek "Minkus" shows up for the high school graduation, they ask him where he's been and he says "over there," pointing to the part of the classroom never shown by the camera, before saying "Hey, Mr. Turner, wait up!" and running off screen (Mr. turner being another character who left) Oh well - maybe there will be an E true Hollywood story on this or something? I was just glad to see Aunt Hilda show up for the finale - she was always one of my favorites - it's too bad it couldn't have been a more encompassing cast reunion. (The Zelda candle just didn't cut it for me) Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: no


Question: Review: If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer:
no