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".

[EX Q]: Review: 'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States  perhaps in the blustery streets of New York  but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film  in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best. Question: is it a positive review?
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Review: I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Review: John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashionthat cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day. Question: is it a negative review?
[EX A]:
no