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: From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the 3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: no

[Q]: Review: Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]:
yes