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: The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's "talents" other than drumming.Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
yes