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: This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve. Question: is it a negative review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: (David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women ! Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no


Input: Consider Input: Review: In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: no