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: For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?! Question: is it a negative review?

Output: no

Input: Consider Input: Review: I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no

Input: Consider Input: Review: NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass. Question: is it a negative review?
Output: no