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: 'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States  perhaps in the blustery streets of New York  but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film  in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best. Question: is it a positive review?
yes

Review: The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless. Question: is it a negative review?
yes

Review: The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon. Question: is it a negative review?

yes