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: After the success of the second instalment, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton decided that Blackadder should have a third appearance. This time instead of Tudor times or Elizabethan times, Edmund Blackadder (BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson) is living in the time of the French Revolution. Accompanied by the now stupid but lovable Baldrick (Tony Robinson) Blackadder is the "faithful" butler to George, the Prince Regent of Wales (Hugh Laurie). Throughout this third series to the wonderfully written sitcom Blackadder tries everything he can to get rich and powerful. He tries electing a lord for a rotten borough, tries to sell a book, tries to win a bet about The Scarlet Pimpernel, tries to be a highway man and finally poses as the Prince. This is a very good instalment to the popular comedy. Includes appearances from Robbie Coltrane, Tim McInnerny, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Fry. It won the BAFTA for Best Comedy Series, and it was nominated for Best Design and Best Make Up. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and Blackadder (all four series) was number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom. Outstanding! Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
yes


question:
Review: Hey everyone...There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The "Clown Killer" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.1 star out of ten. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:

no