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: James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes. The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame. One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: "Killer of his own men." Char isn't given this label. The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old. The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year. But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****