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: It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.The last credit in this film explains its appeal - "Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed." A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes