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".

Ex Input:
Review: Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel "Lord of the Flies", glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other "INTELLIGENT" characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing) Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Review: OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:

no