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: What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! "Revenge is a two way street" seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption! Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. (Possible spoiler warning) The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output:
no