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 found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.Torn, in the end I judged it a 7. Question: is it a positive review?

A: yes
****
Q: 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?

A: no
****
Q: Review: I do find it a bit overrated. Maybe it's just because I've never seen a subtitled version (dubbing stinks!), but I just don't get into it like a lot of other people do. The finale is really great though as Jackie trashes a mall, a scene that plays in my head every time i go shopping! Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****