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: After the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal. The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints). Question: is it a positive review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.I only wish I could vote 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". Scenes like those you will find plenty. Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: yes