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 should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibusan anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate talesPeter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho' We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. The four stories  chapters if you will  in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly originalbut it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and  even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new  this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the filmher cleavage in particular. No doubt about itThe House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may notrepeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.This is a wonderful, unsung romance.Grade: A+ Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no