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: ...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good timeso why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous endingin which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the moviemy head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the bestbut don't expect too much. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth! Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
yes