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: In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.I only wish I could vote 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable "whipping". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, "Whipped" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think "The Man Show" is Emmy material. Question: is it a negative review?

Output: yes


Input: Consider Input: Review: What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things  and about a porn actor  she fits in perfectly. Question: is it a positive review?


Output: yes