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: NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no