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: That's what the title should be, anyway.This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.What happens in the movie? People die.Is that it? Yes.What is the plot about? What plot?What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made". Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, everand before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not thereediting-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risque content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno! Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]:
no