input: Loved it but still have nightmares over the hotel manager.The movie, was presented well, with the choice of actors carrying their roles to reality of the writing. Many scenes gripped the imagination and created a nail biter. The progression of situations were cleverly written,making me believe the story was headed one way only to find a new twist on what I thought might be the obvious. Too bad there have to be commercials.I have told many friends to watch for further showings and I of course will view again.I enjoyed the scenery of the film and felt this added to the plots and intrigue. Husband and wife heated discussions(or should I say fights?) were very realistic.The initial situation is a common one but the escalation into the story presented fortunately is not.I want to thank all who were involved in this great entertainment film. Thank you! Looking forward to the next films---when? Whidbey

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Bad movie. It's too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I'm a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.(

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.

In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, "Sergeant Ryker" is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.

This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many "name" actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.

Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.

However, despite its apparent obscurity, "Sergeant Ryker" still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive