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 horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia. Question: is it a negative review?
yes

Review: This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. Question: is it a negative review?
no

Review: You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derriere is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only. Question: is it a negative review?
yes