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: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker? Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
no