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".

Input: Consider Input: Review: There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right. Question: is it a negative review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. Question: is it a negative review?


Output: no