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 Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: I happen to like Leslie Howard, in his better films. Yet, for some reason, his performance in OF HUMAN BONDAGE never has moved me tremendously. I first saw the film on my college campus in 1972 and the reviewer in the college newspaper made the comment that in the 1930s and 1940s Howard played the roles supposedly later picked up by Dirk Bogard as the man who was born to be betrayed. This is not usually the case (off hand I think of Ashley Wilkes as a man who might be betrayed, if he and Scarlett O'Hara were meant to be an item by Margaret Mitchell - but Ashley loved Melonie, not Scarlett). Howard could play any type, and a role like R. J. Mitchell or Professor Henry Higgins is not one who is betrayed.*(*One can make the case that Philip Armstrong Scott is betrayed by the two strangers he shows hospitality to in 49TH PARALLEL, but they are Nazis who consider him - a liberal, westerner, Canadian - fair game to double cross in wartime. It isn't the same as emotional betrayal, and Howard does not shrivel up as a result, but faces the Nazis and captures one after beating him up.) I think what the reviewer meant was that Howard could be soulful - or try to be soulful. Witness his poet - dreamer - wanderer in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. But that character was not betrayed, except by history perhaps (as he feels his type is as out of date as the gangster played by Humphrey Bogart). The character of Philip Carey in Somerset Maugham's OF HUMAN BONDAGE is soulful too. He is sensitive for several reasons. He has an interest in art and tries to become a painter - but unlike the artist Strickland in THE MOON AND SIXPENCE he has no real talent. So he decides to concentrate on medical studies, accentuated by a club foot condition he has. Here he is a man with low self-esteem who is set up to be betrayed.Philip finds that betrayal in the form of Mildred a Cockney waitress (Bette Davis) who is mercenary and as selfish as they come. Why Philip falls for her is not really addressed in the film, but he does find the woman fascinating. And she finds him an easy meal ticket. Ironically in being so captivated by this slut, Philip fails to notice two other women who are interested in him (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee), and are more fit to be his mate. He also keeps finding himself forgiving Davis when she has affairs with other men (Alan Hale and Reginald Denny - the latter a friend of Howard's). Although Howard's performance captures the doormat tendency of Philip towards Mildred, he really does not show enough passion (until late in the movie, when he turns on her). That is why I find I never cared for his performance here - it lacks any reality. His later tortured insistence in GONE WITH THE WIND that he loves Olivia De Haviland, not Vivian Leigh, has more consistency with a man in love. But the performance of Davis as Mildred makes the film important. She had a wide variety of parts up to 1934, like the girlfriend of the deaf pianist in THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD or the spoiled heiress who gets murdered in FOG OVER FRISCO or the mouse-like secretary in THREE ON A MATCH. As Mildred she finally showed she could be a major actress by playing a selfish bitch.Curiously her performance was not all of one note. While she uses and abuses Howard for two thirds of the film, culminating in that famous scene where she shows how disgusted his kissing of her made her, her last scenes show she too could fall apart due to her health deteriorating, and her inability to keep any honest jobs. When Howard rejects her the viewers fail to note how equally vicious he becomes (he asks what happened to her baby - she tells him the baby died and Howard says brusquely that he is glad, which is hardly the response she expects). In the end Howard does finally get his life in order, but Mildred ends a casualty (ironically her death discovered by her old boyfriend Denny on a medical call). The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences did fail to nominate Davis in 1934 (leading to the largest write - in campaign in it's history, and a permanent change in it's rules), but Davis was established as a star. In one year she won the Oscar as Joyce Heth in DANGEROUS. And in two years she co-starred with Howard again (as equal stars) in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no