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: Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no


Input: Consider Input: Review: This is one of the best of the genre. I saw it twice about 25yrs ago and have not had another opportunity to see it again since then. It rivals the Zatoichi series (also starring Katsu) in exciting swordplay. Question: is it a negative review?

Output: no


Input: Consider Input: Review: I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it! Question: is it a positive review?


Output: no