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".

Review: I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future. Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. Question: is it a negative review?
yes

Review: Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!! Question: is it a negative review?

yes