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: The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes