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: I would almost give it 10 out of 10. However, there are some confusing parts as well as sections that are miss-leading which hurt the flow/continuity of the film. The story line is great and well composed; you will definitely want to watch this quietly to fully understand it. The characters are complicated and so is the story line, expect to be given only enough information to stop scratching your head, it's a film where all is explained in the end. The animation is great and the combination of femme fatal and film noir result in a great film that is unlike anything else I've seen in animation. It is a black and white film and its quiet dark in a few scenes so it's worth watching it on a good T.V, or plasma. The character voices do save this film in its English version, but it would have been more convincing if there were some French accents to emphasize that its happening Paris, I enjoyed it more in French with English subtitles. One the whole its well worth buying on DVD or BlueRay if they have it! And personally if you enjoyed this film you might also like; Waking Life & Ghost in a Shell 2 Innocence, this is just a personal suggestion. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places  the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world. Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****