instruction:
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: This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.2 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal  marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches  but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star  Franchot Tone  packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor  he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead  Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945)  is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr.  the genre's quintessential fall guy  as an ill-fated "ladies' man" of a percussionist.Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction  all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York  which results in his being mowed down by a car! Notable, too, is the trial sequence  which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone "dizzy spells". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt  and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film  in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater  the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:
no


question:
Review: Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised. Question: is it a negative review?
answer:

no