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: A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: 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?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: ...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****