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: This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement. Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself! Question: is it a negative review?
Example Output: no

Example Input: Review: I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru Question: is it a positive review?
Example Output:
no