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: (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: -A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with "Flightplan" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of "24" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing "Cursed" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half Question: is it a negative review?

Output: no


Input: Consider Input: Review: I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: yes