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: I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see!I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see! Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****