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: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: ...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in "Mordor", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's "le feu follet" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as "our hero",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:

yes