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: ****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no


Input: Consider 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?

Output: no


Input: Consider Input: Review: Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of "how is he going to tell her such and such" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: no