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: i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: no


[Q]: Review: Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: Follow-up to 1973's far better "Cleopatra Jones" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from **** Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes