input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: .......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.

He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.

Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.

Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: In today's world of digital fabrication, there is no computer than can replace the actor and writer. Alas, this type of "character driven" film is far too rare these days. Duvall's performance as well as James Earl Jones are faithful to their audience's high expectations. I wonder if this movie was made for TV? It has a "close-up" personal quality to the narrative. It is an understatement to say that the performances are all Outstanding. The only thing that keeps it from being a cinema Masterpiece is the lack of a great Cinematographer, but pretty pictures are not everything. How can talent the likes of Jones and Duvall continue to produce such fine work in an age where actors pose for the digitizing?
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: It's hard for me to assign the "fair" number of stars to this film, but I settled on 8 because of its high production values and what was, in 1968, an innovative approach to the war film. Remember too that I haven't seen it since 1969. But it did make a strong impression.

The Long Day's Dying must be one of the most vivid antiwar films ever made. It achieves this simply by portraying in extremely realistic terms the actions of a handful of soldiers in Northwestern Europe in 1944-45. No film before this one showed war at the infantry squad level with so much brutal detail, and all in a coldly dispassionate way that lets the actions speak for themselves. There is no preaching, no sentimentality, no comic relief, no complicated scenarios.

Unfortunately, there's no subtlety either. Partly because of their situation - trying to stay alive - the characters come across as flat, familiar cliche's. As "entertainment," the film doesn't make it, though it was clearly not intended to "entertain." It was intended to slug you over the head with the misery and horror of World War II and modern war in general. This was twenty years before Platoon and thirty before Saving Private Ryan, both of which are far more "watchable" films. Here the flat and generally disagreeable characters, the lack of an actual plot, and the realistically unpleasant images (including what may be the first on-screen vomit in theatrical history) make the film hard to sit through, though it is only 95 minutes.

So, 10 stars for production and realism, 4 stars for the feeling you'll have when it's over, a bonus star for having its heart in the right place. Average: 8.

Like Carl Foreman's underrated "The Victors," an equally downbeat but more interesting and thought-provoking film, The Long Day's Dying seems not to be on DVD. Why not? Both films have been on cable a number of times.
....
output answer:
positive