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: One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites. Question: is it a negative review?

A: no
****
Q: Review: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category. Question: is it a negative review?

A: yes
****
Q: Review: Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the "senior" Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want! Question: is it a positive review?

A:
yes
****