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".

Review: Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. Question: is it a positive review?
yes

Review: I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.[spoilers follow]Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, "He's finally snapped" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, "He drowned in his pool last night" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring. Question: is it a positive review?

no