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: A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. "My name's Shocky," says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: A bad rip-off attempt on "Seven", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them "sex offenders", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.Unlike "Seven", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about "sex offenders" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.Don't waste time on this one. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output:
no