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: For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended! Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Alan Curtis has a loud, violent sounding argument with his wife, slams out of his apartment, has a night of drinking with a mysterious lady with a large hat in a bar (run by Andrew Tombes, in a nice villainous part for a change), and returns to find his wife dead and the police, led by Thomas Gomez waiting for him. His attempts to prove his alibi - that he was with that mysterious lady - fall because everyone that he can think of (Tombes, Elisha Cook) claims there was never any such person. He ends up with no alibi, although his secretary (who secretly loves him) Ellen Raines believes him. Convicted after a trial, he is awaiting his death sentence. Raines starts going out after the truth, discovering that Gomez has some doubts of his own. She also finds an ally in a friend of Curtis, Franchot Tone, who was apparently out of town the night of the crime. Will she clear Curtis in time? THE PHANTOM LADY is based on a novel by William Irish (the great noir writer Cornell Woolrich). As movie fans know from other works by Woolrich (LEOPARD MAN, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, REAR WINDOW, NO MAN OF HER OWN) one cannot assume what is true on the surface anywhere. The missing wife of a salesman may not actually be upstate, sending him messages that she arrived, if he still has her jewelry. The mentalist may really be able to predict tragedy - or was he plotting the murder of his old partner, now an oil millionaire? Did a leopard kill the young women, or is the wealthy recluse in town actually hiding some guilty knowledge? Is the young woman, claiming to be the wife of a brother killed in a train wreck, actually an impostor? Here it is Raines and Gomez (with an assist by Tone) trying to prove Curtis did see a woman nobody will admit seeing - and if he did see her, why is nobody else able to recall seeing her? The problem with the story really is Curtis's personality - he gives in too easily when found guilty of the crime he did not commit. In reality anyone who is innocent would be screaming it to the moment they are executed. However, in defense of Curtis's collapse, it also happens to other people in various films: Gary Cooper, in MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, gets so disgusted about the framing he gets as delusional and mad by Douglas Dumbrille and his minions that he does not defend himself at first, until the people who would depend on his help cry out their fears in the courtroom and reawaken his sense of responsibility. But Curtis just seems to give up. In normal circumstances Raines, Gomez, and everyone else would not care if Curtis didn't.But the film survives this weakness. The slow unraveling of lies by witnesses bribed by the real killer allows two set pieces for Raines with Tombes on a deserted elevated platform and Elisha Cook at a jazz session. Gomez turns out to be more perceptive than the villain expects in double checking his alibi again. And the villain manages to keep slightly ahead of Raines and Gomez until the concluding minutes of the film. If it is not as great a film as DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or THE MALTESE FALCON, it holds up pretty well until the moment Curtis and Raines are reunited at the end. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no