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 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?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen. Question: is it a negative review?

A:
yes
****