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: NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running "Hammer House of Horror" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title "The House that Bled to Death" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, "Growing Pains" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. "The House that Bled to Death" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
yes