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: Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that "Lili Marleen" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's "women movies" like "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (1979) and "Lola" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that "stories can be told much better with women than with men", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, "women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play "The City, the Garbage and the Death" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title "Shadow of Angels" (1976).Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their "misuse" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because "good" and "bad" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the "owner" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:

yes