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: This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a negative review?
yes

Review: Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality. Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is mostfamous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "ThePsychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchablelist.The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a goldmask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbedstud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magicbecause they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flataction sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but notbefore taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up withmy high school girlfriend.Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen withsmoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make youcrave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects arelaughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo areattacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches onthe film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have beenspent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurtingwounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in awhile, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anywayjust to see what the heck was happening.There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let medo a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does notappear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a conjob. What MST3K could have done with this!This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, femalenudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content. Question: is it a negative review?
yes