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: Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second... Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Review: I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Review: This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid... Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:

no