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".

Example Input: Review: I disagree with previous comment about this movie. I think it was cute and fun and it carried a good message for young girls like my daughter. You don't have to dress like a cheap hooker to be cool. You can be smart and pretty and classy all at once.I think the cast was good and the story was fine for the target audience. All-in-all my wife, daughter (10) and I each thought it was a good movie. I certainly recommend it. It also has encouraged my daughter to start reading the original Nancy Drew mysteries which I am sure she will love much as I loved the Hardy Boys. It was a struggle to get her to sleep tonight because she wanted to start reading right away. I can't think of a better outcome for that movie than rekindling interest in that classic series. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down "depth charges" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment. Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks "What did I do wrong?" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible. Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: "Can you do this every day?" Emory is forced to nod "No" and the manager asks: "Then what were you trying to prove?" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day "We just spit in your eye." Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it. This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Michael Curtiz directed this 1930 very-stylish whodunit from a script by Robert Presnell Sr., Robert N. Lee and Peter Mine. The original novel they adapted was "The Kennel Murder Case", perhaps from a writer's standpoint the best of the Philo Vance mysteries by the strange S.S. Van Dine. Vance was a long-worded and superior detective genius, and his character being assigned to William Powell probably meant the executives at Warner Brothers were aware of the possibility that in less-engaging hands this detective might alienate viewers. Fortunately they assigned suave William Powell first to the character.; later he was played by Basil Rathbone, Warren William, and Paul Lukas before being consigned to "B" picture status.The other question as always with Warner Brothers executives is why they chose Vance as a character; their penchant was to choose men who operated outside the law, with no apparent discrimination between a vicious murderer and a champion of individual rights against all comers. This film has a despicable villain who gets murdered, and a claustrophobically challenging locale inside an apartment complex. The characters are unarguably unusually well-realized, the direction rather good and unusually swift-paced; and except for a darkish B/W look, the film avoids the comedic asides, superfluous characters and irrelevant dialogue characteristic of many early detective entries. Jack Okey did the good art direction. The music by Berhard Kaun is serviceable; Orry-Kelly did the costumes. William Reese provided the mostly-indoor cinematography. In the interesting cast, Powell is THE Philo Vance of his time, mostly sober-minded with just a hint of sardonic humor here and there. Eugene Palette is better than usual playing very straight as an admiring police partner to Vance, with his very professional timing. The other actor who comes off best is handsome Paul Cavangh, very effective as always in what was written as a red herring part. Mary Astor is attractive but at this point in her career she talked a bit too fast to be as effective as she later proved. Also in the cast were Helen Vinson as the villain's woman, Jack La Rue, Ralph Morgan (best known as Frank Morgan's brother), Robert Barrat as the villain everyone has cause to kill, Archer Coe, and Frank Conroy as his likable brother with Robert McWade as the D.A.; quirky and funny Etiienne Girardot has a delightfully witty part as the funny little forensics doctor who comes onto the crime scene. James lee as the abused Chinese servant is excellent and intelligent. The story breaks into four parts. First there is shad doings at a dog show, where Vance, Coe and Cavanagh are all showing West Highland terriers. Cavanagh's dog is killed, by Coe, to prevent him winning the title over his own entry. The second portion of the scene involves a leave-taking; someone is confused enough by who has gone where, after Coe parts from his girl friend, Vinson, to murder his nice brother by mistake. Enter Vance, to find out who did in Archer Coe in a locked room and how, with the help of Palette; the romantic difficulties are straightened out, the Chinese servant is exonerated, we find out who broke the expensive vase, who will marry whom, how Archer Coe was done in and why the butler did not do it--but someone else with a good excuse did. This is a more-than-good little mystery, which skilled Hungarian-born director Curtiz took quite seriously. He used wipes, swift cuts, changes of camera angle and alternations between straightforward and daring camera-work to achieve variety, interest and a sustained pace. Many writers, critics and experts, myself included, consider this to be the best of the Vance projects, although others are estimable as well. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no