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".

Review: Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a cafe where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. Question: is it a positive review?
yes

Review: The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. Question: is it a negative review?
no

Review: It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction. Question: is it a negative review?
no