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".
--------
Question: Review: I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer: yes


Question: Review: ...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud. Question: is it a negative review?

Answer: yes


Question: Review: This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence. Question: is it a positive review?

Answer:
yes