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: Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful. Question: is it a positive review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.Barry Freed Question: is it a negative review?

A:
yes
****