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 went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable. Question: is it a negative review?
yes

Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice. Question: is it a negative review?

yes