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".

Input: Consider Input: Review: ...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.Just fantastic. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to "Blainsworth" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it. Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution  his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier  talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life  living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army  swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast  Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy  that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: yes