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: You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the cafe opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.A waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
no