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: The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes. The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame. One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: "Killer of his own men." Char isn't given this label. The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old. The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year. But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television. Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Review: Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06 Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output:
yes