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".

Example Input: Review: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers  not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure  you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood "9th Gate."If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all  at all except a redhead wig.I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; "Rear Window." The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine. Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the "I am not amused" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt! Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
no