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: of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Review: i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala! Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:

yes