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: I found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.Torn, in the end I judged it a 7. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes


Ex 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?

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Review: After "A Dirty Shame", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this "Pecker" sure is a lot better than "A Dirty Shame".In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". I give this movie a 6.5/10. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:

yes