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: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media. Question: is it a negative review?
no