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".

Ex Input:
Review: Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly  I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right  we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews  I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo? Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:

no