Rating: 
Summary: Exciting, very relevant political/military thriller
Review: Viewed simply as a political/military thriller, "The Sum of All Fears" is a taut, well-acted, very effective movie. The film, based on a Tom Clancy techno-thriller, concerns a terrorist plot by European neo-Nazis to light off a nuclear weapon in America. Their reasoning is that America would blame the Russians automatically, and World War III would ensue, clearing the playing field for a Nazi takeover of Europe.I have all kinds of intellectual problems with that premise, which I'll go into in greater depth later, but in the aftermath of September 11, it's safe to say that the events depicted here are every American's worst nightmare come true. Given that this movie was made before September 11, I don't if the filmmakers were aiming for this kind of resonance, but they achieved it nonetheless. Stepping back and viewing "The Sum of All Fears" strictly as an entertainment, it's pretty close to a home run. It is suspenseful, smart, and even humorous at times. Like the other Clancy novels brought to the big screen, the hero is Jack Ryan (an effective Ben Affleck), a CIA analyst who always seems to get thrown into operations more suited for field spies. However, unlike the earlier Clancy-based movies, Ryan isn't married with kids - he's a twenty-something guy who's just beginning his CIA career, and his analysis of the new Russian government gains the notice of the CIA director, William Cabot (Morgan Freeman). Soon, Ryan is on his way to Moscow to do a weapons inspection (and UN-bashers, take note: he doesn't do a very good job either), much to the disappointment of his girlfriend Cathy, who has no idea what her man does for a living and is disappointed over being blown off. The payoff for this subplot comes when Ryan is on a plane somewhere over the Atlantic, and has to break a date with Cathy. He doesn't think he can let her in on his "secret" profession, but Cabot gives him the green light, and Ryan spills the beans. Of course, Cathy doesn't buy it, which provides the movie's best humorous moment. Strong supporting performances in ample supply, most prominently from James Cromwell, who plays the president, and Liev Schreiber as Mr. Clark, a nice enough guy who you better pray never comes calling for you. The sets have an authentic feel about them, and the visual effects are well-done. Most importantly, the payoff scene - the detonation of the nuclear weapon - is completely effective, despite being less graphic and detailed than depictions in other films (notably "Terminator 2"). Instead, director Phil Alden Robinson chooses to use timing and the shock value of the event itself, not detailed depictions of the bomb's effects, as a dramatic device, and it works very well. It probably saved him a few million in special effects as well, but if it works, why not? One thing that doesn't work in "The Sum of All Fears" is the depiction of military action, especially the attack on an American carrier. It was far too easy for the Russians to hit the carrier with missiles, which is something Tom Clancy points out on the commentary track. In reality, the closest those bombers would have gotten, especially in a wartime environment, would have been a picture in "Jane's Fighting Ships." Come to think of it, what this movie really lacks is the kind of detail that Clancy's novels always come with, but then again, Clancy's tendency towards verbal diarrhea and constant Dittohead blathering are mercifully left out. In a two-hour movie, I suppose that's a good balance. Much has also been made of the producers' decision to replace the villains in the book version (Arabs, a German terrorist, and an American Indian) with neo-Nazis was based on political correctness, a charge the producers deny. Bunk, I say - it's obvious to me that the last people on Earth who would start an all-out nuclear war between Russia and America would be Europeans. A look at the map tells you why - Russia IS a European country, after all. Why would they poison their own continent? I suspect replacing Arabs as the villain was as much a financial consideration as anything else - the Middle East is an important market for Hollywood, and while Europeans wouldn't skip this movie because it concerns European neo-Nazis (they have little love for Nazis, neo or not), Middle Easterners would certainly complain about having Arabs depicted as bloodthirsty terrorists, particularly after September 11. But that carping aside, "The Sum of All Fears" delivers the goods - action, political intrigue, and a very relevant cautionary tale that should have us all thinking twice. Early in the movie, there's an exchange between the president and Cabot about the Russians. The president is worried about the Russians, who have 27,000 nuclear weapons pointed in our direction. "I'm worried about the guy with one," replies Cabot. Worried, indeed. More like scared to death.
Rating:
Summary: A frightening look at the worst-case scenario...
Review: I never read the book that the movie was adapted from, but I certainly did enjoy the movie. Parts of it seemed unrealistic, and the movie is a wonderful example of big-budget Hollywood action movies. However, I found the movie frightening, as the explosion of a nuclear device in this country is the sum of all fears. My biggest gripe with the film is its unrealistic, political correct portrayal of Neo-Nazis as the terrorists who attack this country. In all honesty, I think the country has far greater dangers than Neo-Nazis. Regardless, get a copy of this film, as you will enjoy it.
Rating: 
Summary: An insult to Tom Clancy and his fans
Review: I will say the good stuff first because that part is short. This movie is pretty, and has good special effects. And of course Morgan Freeman is excellent as usual.
Casting Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan was a hideous error! Anybody who has read any of the Tom Clancy books with the Jack Ryan character knows that Jack Ryan is middle aged, and in the story that goes right before this one, he was appointed to be the Deputy Director Intellegence for the CIA. How the hell do you go from that to having him be super young and brand new to the Agency in the very next story? This was just a bad call, and the possible reasons for it are even worse. I am sure this was done to attract a wider, possibly younger audience, however, it also really made us true fans really mad!
I would say that this movie might be worth watching, but only if you have not read any other books, and you have not seen any of the prior movies. If you are at all a Tom Clancy fan, or you liked the previous movies, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! It will only make you mad. Affleck is not really a very skilled actor to start with, and that is painfully obvious in this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Movie!
Review: In the original book the villains were Islamic extremists.In
this movie they are Neo Nazis. During the Yom Kippur war an
Israeli jet carrying an atomic bomb is shot down losing the bomb.
This bomb is found years later an sold to the Neo Nazis. The Neo
Nazis want the Americans and Nazis to go to war. They explode the bomb in America making the Russians look at fault.The two
count lock and load their nuclear arsenals to prepare for war. Jack Ryan played ably by Ben Affleck saves the day. Morgan Freeman does a good role as the head of the CIA. The ending is excellent. This is a good movie that you should watch.Buy it.
Rating:
Summary: too realistic
Review: I thought this was a great movie and I've never read the books so i might be more on the minority side. I did although think Afleck could of done a bit better. It is very realistic, especially with the problems over in Korea and Iraq now. God help us.
Rating:
Summary: Not too bad...
Review: Well, I watched this with mixed feelings befeore it started. I had read the book, and all the other Clancy books before. I winced at the though of Ben Affleck in the role of Jack Ryan. Although I think Morgan Freeman is one of the best actors, I thought that giving Cabot such a strong presence in the films was an attempt to resurrect Greer, who met an end in his last film. Still, the book was excellent, and I had yet to be disappointed in a movie adaption. So I bought this DVD, and I liked it. It wasn't as good as the other films, and Ben Affleck was still too weak and off for the role, but he did an alrlight job, enough that I would see the next one if he was in it. Morgan Freeman brought Cabot's role to the forefront, and made the character more dynamic than the book did. James Cromwell of course did his part well, althought not quite like the book, which for a movie isn't always bad. My main disappointment was Clark, who was a specific kind of character in the books, and portrayed by someone who just didn't fit the part. Most unusual of the film was the reworking of the other stories. This movie, because of the new cast, was set when Jack Ryan first joined the CIA, rather than when he was in one of the top ranks. All the character's pasts were gone, Cathy was no longer a leading lazer surgeon, Clark and Ryan had never met, etc. So going back and watching Hunt for Red October, I felt that in this film too much time was spent trying to repeat Ryan from that film, where he was contradicting and going against the top minds in the government. Overall, though, when viewed for what it is, a fresh film, it's very good, and an excellect story, which is quite literally one of the scariest ideas ever.
Rating: 
Summary: The most untrue to the book film ever
Review: The acting and action scenes in this film may well be great but if you read the books they ALL follow on from the last. So what this film has done to the book is almost criminal. The book follows on but the film takes a BIG step back. In Clear and Present Danger Jack Ryan has just been promoted to Deputy Director Intelegence and in the book "Sum of All Fears" his character goes on from this point, But the film has him as a younger chap who is a "rookie" desk agent! I know Harrsion Ford was not signed up for the role but surely a similar aged actor who could carry on the role, could have been found.
I have read the book and this is not the only flaw, the others are too numerable to mention. The book is briliant and very entertaining, but as for the film i have to say i am fuming about the fact that the film industry has taken to pieces this great work. It is now a totally different story and all true Clancy lovers should avoid this film like the plague.
My personal favorite actor for the role of Jack Ryan was Alec Baldwin's "Hunt for Red October". My favorite Tom Clancy novel happens to be "Without Remorse" which isn't even about Jack Ryan.
Rating:
Summary: A "Wow" kind of movie!
Review: I seriously believe that Ben Afleck had to make up for the outwritten "Pearl Harbor." The Sum of all fears filled me with suspense humor and bits of action. The political side of the movie is even entertaining itself. "The sum of all fears" is about a CIA worker who's boss leads him into a case about russian criminals tying to start a nuclear war between Russia and America by framing Russia into attacks on America. The criminals do succeed in setting off a bomb in Baltimore and attacking an American aircraft carrier but are stopped by evidence that Russia had been framed. Luxemburgh ratings believes that "The Sum of All Fears" was well written and included superb acting so deserves the four stars it was given.
Rating:
Summary: Too much plot, not enough sense
Review: In Israel a nuclear bomb long thought lost in the desert sands has gone missing; in Russia the American CIA led by Morgan Freeman is investigating the disappearance of three atomic scientists; in Austria a neo-Nazi (Alan Bates) is at the head of a scheme to start a war between Russia and the USA that will allow his party supreme rule of the earth. These and many other plot wrinkles are uncomfortably pieced together in this wonky adaptation of Tom Clancy's latest novel, one that has been rewritten from the original source to have its main character Jack Ryan now a novice at the CIA instead of the tired professional played by Harrison Ford, in order to accommodate the casting of young Ben Affleck. Unfortunately, it hasn't been rewritten well, so instead of you getting the impression that filmmakers are now exploring the possibilities available in seeing this character before he could confidently make choices in his line of work, you mainly feel that it has been worked out this way merely as an excuse to have the young superstar in the role. Affleck is sturdy in the lead (which was originated by Alec Baldwin), as is the entire supporting cast around him (James Cromwell, Ron Rifkin, Philip Baker Hall and an excellent Ciaran Hinds as the Russian president are high points, while Bates performs with a stupid German accent that makes his dialogue impossible to understand every time he opens his mouth), but the film's climax is weak. The main centrepiece scene, that of a nuclear bomb exploding in Baltimore, is extremely impressive but badly timed. The story is more complex and impressive than any other Clancy work, but with a far too-relaxed Phil Alden Robinson directing it too many notches short of white-knuckle tight, it's a collection of great elements that just doesn't equal the sum of its parts.
Rating: 
Summary: Worst Clancy adaptation of all
Review: This would have been an extremely well-crafted thriller if it had been a creation of the screen originally, then maybe some author like Jerome Preisler or Michael Avallone did a release-dated novelization. The trouble is that it philosophically eviscerates the best Tom Clancy Jack Ryan story to date. Ben Affleck isn't bad as a younger Cold War-era Ryan, Morgan Freeman brings his usual dignity to the role of Jack's boss Cabot. But I hated the scene where Ryan tells med student girlfriend Cathy Muller about his unexpected line-of-duty trip to Moscow on the phone in-flight, and she responds in the manner of an overpossessive brat (who do you think you are standing me up?) and hanging up in Jack's ear. Go pick up the book and tell me if this is anything like the Dr. Cathy Ryan you'll read about there. It's more than the change in maturity of one woman at two different phases of her life--the two Cathys are two completely different people. God help this Cathy if she had the book Cathy as a med school instructor--she'd get told to grow the hell up yesterday. A person who's going to be a doctor needs more self control than that. This is not Tom Clancy's classy, courageous Dr. Caroline Ryan by a country mile. But I'm saving the more obvious critique for last. Who in the world decided that it was wrong to have the bad guys remain the Mideast terrorist cell under the direction of a successor to the Ayatollah Khomeini as written by Tom Clancy in the book? What was with the obvious cop-out of switching the black hat over to a cold-and-severe neo-Nazi straight out of a bad Ludlum book? Was it the reluctance to demonize an enemy to the point of perceived bigotry? I don't think anybody really needs me to remind them that 9/11/01 was symbolic of the fact that America doesn't exactly have a monopoly on hatred in plural. Of the fact that more people than us Yanks are capable of saying "they're all alike and should be exterminated" about some targeted group. As a Clancy fan, I'm always having to defend him against accusations of jingoism and chauvinism--how could he have lent his name to this? So my rating is a split ticket. 5 for filmcraft. 2 for the wuss-out this film represents as compared to its print counterpart. And zero for format--why did they only make a widescreen version when just about everything else is offered in fullscreen? There are a lot of us who can only afford a 27" Magnavox. Widescreen makes for a dinky picture on my Mag, which isn't really that small a set.
|
