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: A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in "To Kill a Mockingbird", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]:
yes