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: This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no

Ex Input:
Review: Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time. Question: is it a negative review?

Ex Output:
no

Ex Input:
Review: Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable. Question: is it a positive review?

Ex Output:
no