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: 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?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes


[Q]: Review: You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor "Little Nikki" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every "Air Band" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
no