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: 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?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is. Question: is it a negative review?
[A]: yes

[Q]: Review: Though not a horror film in the traditional sense, this creepy little film delivers the goods. It seems a vampire is loose in a small German town draining its victims of their blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschneider, Melvyn Douglas in one of his early roles, is skeptical believing a crazed killer not a vampire is running amok. The only one who believes him is Ruth Bertin (Faye Wray) the inspector's girlfriend and lab assistant to Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who though apparently an eminent scientist goes along with the vampire theory. The townspeople suspect the weirdo Herman Gleib, played with his usual frenzy by Dwight Frye who seems to be having a lot of fun with his role. The film contains quite a bit of humor which helps relieve some of the intensity involved with all the murders being committed. One funny part has Gussie Schnappmann (Maude Eburne), Ruth Bertin's aunt, thinking weird Herman has turned not into a bat but into a dog. Maude Eburne and Dwight Frye make a good comedy team.This budget movie brings in elements from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" with Dr. Niemann using the power of suggestion to make a somnambulist carry out his orders, from "Frankenstein" by using the human blood to help create life in the laboratory, and "Dracula" since the murders are believed by everyone except the inspector and his girl to be the work of a bloodsucker. Thses elements are mixed well by director Frank R. Strayer with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. The concoction works. The restored version I viewed used tinting to increase the spooky atmosphere. So try to see the this version if possible. Question: is it a positive review?
[A]:
yes