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: It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than "Mafia" did for the criminal underground. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, "I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?", we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, "it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child" he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no