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: What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many "song" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a "war is hell" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Review: This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed! Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found "Life Stinks" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:

no