instruction:
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".
question:
Review: I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a "ripoff") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!). The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: I saw this at the premiere in MelbourneIt is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.Such is life. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:

no