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: James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads "Deliverance", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were "Patton", "Papillon", and "All the President's Men"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
no