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: Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say). Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no