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: (Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no

Ex Input:
Review: "Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
yes

Ex Input:
Review: Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
no