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: When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the "Sesame Street/Muppets" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone "I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says "I think we're engaged now"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway "wink wink" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on "kid-level cheesy" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw "10"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: This is so exciting! After I saw "La Roue" this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect. Question: is it a negative review?

A:
no
****