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: If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no

Input: Consider Input: Review: This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy. Question: is it a positive review?

Output: no

Input: Consider Input: Review: A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim. Question: is it a positive review?
Output: no