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".

Example Input: Review: This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
yes