Rating: 
Summary: Sum Of The Parts Is Zero
Review: If you have seen any of the previous three adaptations of Tom Clancy's work you will find this latest installment to be the most inept. If you have read the book this film is, "based on", the only common ground between the book and the movie is the title. Tom Clancy stated in an interview that he "had nothing to do with the film, he just signed the checks". To me this means that he has no pride of authorship in his work, for this film presumes the audience to be fools whether they have read the book or not. Whoever wrote the storyline for the film may have read the book jacket, but only maybe.Asking the audience to accept a new Jack Ryan that is about half the age of his predecessor is fine, to then leave the same actor in place as president from the last film boggles the imagination. The weapon that is used, the people who develop it, and the method and place of delivery have nothing to do with the book. Among the more absurd events (a very partial list):
When there is an atomic explosion there is an event called EMP, or Electro Magnetic Pulse. This instantly shuts down everything from a pacemaker imbedded in someone's chest, all vehicles, radios, palm pilots, aircraft, cell phones, and anything else that requires electrical power. Not in this film. Every gadget works beautifully even as the mushroom clouds rises into the air.
Ryan is in a helicopter that is directly in the path of the shockwave of the weapon. Not only would this be impossible to survive, but our hero emerges with barely a scratch.
The effect of the bomb is minimal but they never explain why this is the case, a major issue dealt with in the book. There is no discussion at all as to the damage an event like this would cause.
An aircraft carrier not only does not travel by itself, it has massive amounts of protection and nothing is allowed to come anywhere near it without being challenged. State of the art 1970's USSR technology manages to nearly destroy a carrier after sneaking up by being invisible to radar.
Then things get really ridiculous. Our navy cannot detect antiques, but the Russian President orders that US B2 Stealth Bombers be shot down.
The US Government is portrayed as being a group of mindless bickering idiots, and what was a very clever ending in the book was carefully rewritten into a farce.
Once the bomb is detonated the cinematography is ridiculous. Everything becomes horribly overexposed as though the film itself was the victim of foul play. The pain is extended as we are forced to watch this mess in slow motion. This is hands down the worst film I have seen this year. Number one this weekend it will go away quickly as people who wasted their time in the theater warn others.
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome movie!! A must see!!
Review: I just got done seeing this movie and I must say it kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. Did not want to snooze during this movie! :o) Morgan Freeman and Ben Affleck were perfect for the roles! They work well together. This movie makes you think, keeps you in suspense, it's a must see for everyone in my opinion! I do have to say that the gentleman playing the new Russian president (don't know his name) has got to get a better dye job on his hair. It looks like he dumped a jar of black shoe polish on his hair! With that said, I would highly recommend this movie to everyone! But remember, this is not a kids movie. Go watch & enjoy!!
Rating: 
Summary: Much of the Essense
Review: As a devoted Clancy reader, I went to the theater prepared to thoroughly despise this film - but I didn't. While the Ryan timeline has been altered and the source of the conspiracy has moved from the Middle East to Europe, the significant elements of the story have been preserved. I will not do a disservice to Clancy readers by revealing too much; instead, I tell you this - suspend judgment, suspend disbelief, and GO SEE THE MOVIE. It is tense and it hops. Don't drink a soda - you won't want to take a break during the movie. This movie will not win an Oscar, but it may very well win your favor. I just wish the films producers, backers and directors had the moral courage to leave the original plot line intact. That failing is why I gave this film 4 stars instead of 5. A petulant decision, I grant you, but my call.
Rating:
Summary: The Sum of a Good Movie
Review: The Sum of all Fears was a very good movie, even though it strayed from Clany's book. If the movie line of Jack Ryan novels is ever to continue , the aging Ford and Baldwin need to be replaced by a younger actor, which Ben Affleck fits nicely (I myself would like to see another 3 or 4 Clany book made into movies). As for the people who reviewed the movie to be bad, I disagree and say to get a life and America needs to grow up from Spetember 11th and is tough enough to handle what this movie has to offer. If a war does ever start between Russia and the United States, it will happen similar to the events portrayed in this movie. What if Sept 11th has been blamed on the Russians or China, yet carried out by a few radical members of those govts? Things might have turned out differently, much like The Sum of all Fears. Bottom line, good movie and a good tool to learn from.
Rating:
Summary: The Sum of Its Parts
Review: I've read the Jack Ryan books up to EXECUTIVE ORDERS; IMO, SUM was weakest. I've seen all the Clancy film adaptations. IMO, Harrison Ford did not become Jack Ryan so much as Ryan became more like the rough-edged heroes Ford has played (Han Solo, Indiana Jones). In short, I was more ready for changes than were fans of Ford's Ryan or those who demand Clancy's exact Ryanverse history and plots. The SUM movie isn't very faithful to the SUM book, but it delivers the essential characteristics of Ryan and Clark (as shown in CARDINAL OF THE KREMLIN, WITHOUT REMORSE, and other books better than SUM) more effectively than Ford's PATRIOT GAMES or CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Clancy's books were at their best when Ryan was new to the CIA, an everyman everyone could relate to. This is the Ryan Affleck portrays. Similarly, Mr. Clark was at his best as a field agent who could blend in anywhere and do the work that didn't make the papers. This is the Clark we get in SUM. Freeman's character, Bill Cabot, is closer to Admiral Greer of the early books. His friendships with Ryan and Clark in the movie mimic Greer's friendships in the books. As a fan of Clancy's characters/relationships and his scenarios of global intrigue, I found a lot to enjoy in this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Not like the original, but with merit of its own
Review: I'm a big fan of Tom Clancy novels, so when I first heard about this film I wondered how they would render it. Now that I've seen it, I guess the answer is, "loosely." Still, the film is entertaining if you like the genre (spy/action/intrigue/technothriller). And it has some merit of its own, especially in the scenes showing the confused and angry reactions of U.S. and Russian leaders to perceived threats from the other side. Any performance by Morgan Freeman is a treat, though it was short in this film. Bottom line -- you will be entertained.
Rating:
Summary: Film Promotes Mythical Racist Stereostypes
Review: Morgan Freeman is one of the most talented actors living, and Ben Afleck is my favorite young actor. But their choice of scripts hasn't always been top notch. The Sum Of all Fears is a case in point. Most folks in the US think that the threat to National Safety lies in the Middle East. But forget that. Hollywood moguls know something that the rest of us don't; the real bad guys are white folk, specifically German Nazis! And here we thought they had fallen at the end of WWII. ... And so, The Sum of all Fears hands us an all too familiar racist stereotype: the "evil white foreigner" trying to- what else?- enslave mankind and enthrone a white supremicist government. But our hero, Jack Ryan, is onto them. He ends up saving the world from those jerks, with only a few hundred (thousand) casualties from that darned nuclear blast. In spite of the vast carnage (none of which we see) we get a nice, clean happy ending. Hey, its only a nuke. What were you expecting? Economic depression? Mass rioting? Come on, this is Jack Ryan here! As a white person, I find all this white supremicist paranoia downright offensive. If hollywood were to make a film about black militant terrorists, people would understandably be offended, as no such group exists. Why are whites (especially Germans and Austrians) not irate about this type of film? No one was upset about films like Schindlers List for depicting Nazis as fiends. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, because Speilberg told the truth, and even understated their horrific barbarism. So why is hollywood so concerned about telling the truth about eastern terrorism? Skip this one. Trust me.
Rating: 
Summary: Fear Not to See This One
Review: Cold War cliches abound (One person called the movie "Sum of All Cliches",) Clancyistas will blanche at the changes made from the book, and the original villains (Islamic militants) would, we now sadly know, have been much more relevant to reality than the Neo-Nazis from Central Casting they use. Yet this is still a frightening look at nuclear terrorism in our own backyard that wraps you into the story and delivers a powerful, if implausible ending. Credit Clancy's original plotline, which even Hollywood couldn't kill, though goodness, they tried.
Ben Affleck does a great job as young Jack Ryan with Morgan Freeman his CIA mentor, and James Cromwell an angry and anguished President. Look for a stunning performance from Ciaran Hinds as the Russian leader. I'd see it again ... and again ... and yes, I read the book.
Rating:
Summary: A crowd extra speaks out
Review: Let's get this out of the way first: ***IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN HANDLE SEEING A TACTICAL NUCLEAR DETONATION IN A CIVILIAN POPULATION CENTER, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.*** This one wasn't as slam-bang as the previous three Clancy film adaptations, although it did have some good jokes inserted here and there: a Senator on the Intelligence Committee says his wife called him old, bald and ugly, and DCI Bill Cabot replying that he didn't think the Senator was ugly; John Clark (Liev Schreiber does a better job in the role than Willem Dafoe did in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER) casually remarking on his lack of personal electronic aids while Jack explains an op to him through the use of a PDA; and some HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER-reminiscent jokes of Jack being told that he could give advice but not speak his mind at an intelligence briefing and surprising native Russians with his own fluency in the language. I'll admit that Ben Affleck isn't at the same par as Harrison Ford or Alec Baldwin as Jack, but the guy was never a field operative to begin with--something that, like in THFRO, he harps on once again despite the character's brief military career--and this was really more of a political thriller than a full-blown action flick.
Rating:
Summary: Slow beginning, ok movie.
Review: I wasn't really thrilled by this one. It was a slow start. It was the US vs. Russians - 80s, 70s, 60s movies all over again. Would have been more interesting if it was actually about Middle Eastern terrorists. The nuke dropping was the best part of the whole movie; how it could happen so suddenly and devastatingly. All they hype going on about it is ridiculous. It was probably started by the MPAA to entice people to buy tickets. I would wait for Video or HBO.
| 
