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".

Review: A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty. Question: is it a negative review?
no

Review: I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else. Question: is it a positive review?
no

Review: I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy. Question: is it a negative review?

yes