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: -A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with "Flightplan" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of "24" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing "Cursed" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
no