The Sum of All Fears

Rating:
Summary: Not as good as expected.
Review: I am not a typical fan of military movies, but I _am_ a fan of the Jack Ryan series of movies. They normally prove to be entertaining and suspenseful. However, this one missed it's mark a little.

While Ben Affleck is admittedly very nice to look at, he's not a great actor. Oh sure, he was good in Armageddon, right? No, it turns out that Ben Affleck was playing one person in Armageddon - himself - and has thus far (with the exception of Dogma and Chasing Amy) played the same exact character in every other movie he's been in. In action movies, bad acting doesn't usually matter that much, but when you pair an emotionally-impaired actor like Affleck with three superb actors (who, admittedly, were not at their best in this movie) like Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell and Liev Schreiber, the bad acting stinks like last week's garbage.

The plot was done well enough. It certainly is scary to watch a movie about nuclear war when the threat of one is so near. Not being a military buff, most of the jargon flew right over my head. Many of the dialogue scenes were completely lost on me because of the technical stuff. However, I'm sure this added to the realism of the movie, so I won't complain too much. I don't know how realistic the entire movie was - I've never been a good judge at that - but suffice it to say, my heart leapt into my throat when the nuclear bomb went off. From what I've heard, the filmmakers did pay a lot of attention and did research to make the film realistic.

The biggest detractor from this movie for me was not, however, even related to the movie - it was the theater. Sum of All Fears is, surprisingly, a very quiet movie, and the theater had it turned down low enough so that I missed most of the quiet parts (thank the Gods that half this movie subtitled) and got to hear Star Wars: Episode II again. So if you go to an early showing of this one, make sure your theater doesn't decide to turn the movie down!

I've never read a Tom Clancy novel, but from what I've heard, this movie is much different from the book version. I was quite thrown off with the timeline of this, as Jack Ryan was so young, yet it was set in 2002. The lack of continuity and any connection to previous films bothered me, but not as much as I'm sure it would have had I read the books.

On a scale of one to ten, this movie gets a six. I might possibly change my rating to a seven once I get a chance to see it on video. It's great if you are a military buff and are up on the technical jargon, but if you couldn't use tactical methods to fight your way out of a bowl of cornflakes, then I'd suggest waiting for video on this one.

Rating:
Summary: An hour later and I'm still shaking...
Review: Where to begin? I haven't read ALL of Clancy's books, and I had not read this one, so I'm not in any position to comment on being disappointed with the film 'not following' the book. Evidently it doesn't. Not having read the book, I'm not sure I care.

Affleck is now the third actor to portray the character Jack Ryan, (after Alec Baldwin, and Harrison Ford.) I think he does an admirable job, given the fact that we're seeing a much younger "Jack," very early in his CIA career.

One reviewer complained that he isn't the 'real' Jack Ryan. I have news for you. Neither is the 'real' Jack Ryan. I noticed as the opening credits rolled, that Tom Clancy played a significant role in making the film. Since Jack Ryan is simply a figment of Clancy's fertile imagination (and I guess it didn't bother HIM that much that the character didn't precisely re-create what he had written), then it ought not bother you.

Another reviewer called the movie "fun."

FUN?! I suspect they sat in the wrong theatre by mistake. The film was superb. Suspensful. Disturbing to watch. Thought-provoking. I can't for the life of me think of a scene or scenes that one could call "FUN."

A BRIEF WORD OF CAUTION, in fact, to anyone who lost a loved one or was otherwise DEEPLY affected by the events of September 11th. This probably is NOT the film for you. My wife and I were literally shaking as we exited the theatre, so intense (and now, believable) was the presentation of a nuclear bomb going off on US soil.

No, witnessing a very graphic depiction of an atomic bomb detonating, and instantly vaporizing tens of thousands of people is certainly not "fun." (I should comment however, that I thought this scene, which occurs fairly late in the film, was done with an admirable amount of restraint by the filmmakers. It was not --though it could have been-- a gore-fest. Rather, it looked at the event as with averted vision. Seeing vehicles blown off a highway as if they were made of foam was probably more powerful an image than seeing a mountain of body parts. I compliment them on this decision.)

All in all, I'd give the movie an extra star if I could. I can't recall a film in recent history that affected me so deeply.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting... But then there's Affleck...
Review: First off, let me say that I have read all of Clancy's fiction. I think I have read Sum of All Fears at least 3 times over the years. As far as the movie goes, I thought it was a good action movie, but could have been better without Affleck. He has never had the intensity that Harrison Ford brought to the role. The other major actors were wonderfull, Morgan Freeman is always a powerful actor. The storyline varies from the book in many ways, but as we all know, movies can never equal the depth of a long book. Some stuff that bugs me: Jack Ryan isn't married yet, but this did take place after Red October, Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games (but a couple of books before he's President)... Ben Affleck as a boyfriend is never a good idea. The role was changed to suit Affleck, it should have been the other way around. Unhappily I can understand that Ford or Baldwin might be too old for the part, but Affleck is too young... Perhaps someone from "Thirteen Days" would have been better. To conclude, it is still worth seeing as an action movie, but not as good as Red October. Try to ignore Affleck's naivete...

Rating:
Summary: The Sum of My Fears.
Review: With regard to this movie I had a number of fears. Would the movie be better than the book? Would Ben Affleck play a good Jack Ryan. Would a tired and stale Russia/US cold war plot seem fresh?

I have never read a Clancy novel that I liked. The novels seem to have better gadgetry development than they do character development. I have found that I usually like the movie version better than the book. Hunt for Red October is the exception to the rule. The book was as good as the movie was.

"The Sum of all Fears" was a mixed bag for me. I really could not see Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. Jack Ryan is older, as Harrison Ford is older.

The cold war is over. As we move toward embracing mother Russia and her people I wondered how a movie based on cold war ideologies would play. It almost worked for me. The Nazis pitting the Russians against the Americans was plausable enough. Affleck as Ryan was not. Oh, the acting was good. The scenes shot in Moscow were superb. The storyline was thrilling. And Morgan Freeman was as good in this movie as he was in High Crimes. But Affleck is too young to be a believe Jack Ryan.

The Muslim terrorists of the novel have been replaced with European neo-Nazi terrorists. The reason is, that prior to 9/11, there was a move away from portraying Muslims as terrorist, because of protests by Arab-American groups. Executive producer Clancy complied.

All in all I am happy to say that this was an excellent movie. In my opinion, Tom Clancy produces a better movie than he writes a novel. Cammy Diaz A @ L

Rating:
Summary: A Good Start!
Review: Ben Afleck as a younger Jack Ryan was believable and he should continue to do future Clancy movies. The movie was engrossing and kept me on the edge of my seat. The special effects were not as good as they could have been, but realistic enough especially after 9/11. There were a couple of flaws like having us believe that a US carrier would not be on full alert after a nuclear attack within the USA. I do not believe it would be a sitting duck for the Russians to attack. It is a shame that Morgan Freeman will not be returning as the CIA director. A very enjoyable entertainment experience all in all.

Rating:
Summary: "The Sum of All Fears": An effective, but not great film
Review: I never read Tom Clancy's 1991 novel "The Sum of all Fears." This is probably a good thing for I'm convinced that it's usually a mistake to bring along this baggage when viewing the movie version. I also deliberately blocked out the previous Jack Ryan incarnations portrayed by Alex Baldwin and Harrison Ford. Each movie should be judged on its own merits. "The Sum of all Fears" is an effective, but not fantastic action film. Ben Affleck does an admirable job depicting Ryan as a Generation X Central Intelligence Agency analyst. Ryan writes a report on a Russian politician who becomes that nation's leader. One thing leads to another and his CIA boss Bill Cabot (the always brilliant Morgan Freeman) thrusts him into the spot light. Ryan is now an advisor to the President's cabinet and assists Cabot in monitoring Russia's nuclear capability. Unknown to them, white supremacist terrorists are plotting to trick both the Russians and the United States into a total war against each other. They have no hesitation to explode a nuclear weapon resulting in widespread death and destruction. Ryan and his cohorts battle the terrorists---and do not always win. Did the makers hold back on the ghoulish horror of a major bomb explosion due to the events of 9/11? If so, this was a major error. We need to be continuously warned about the real life terrorists who are committed to putting all of us to death. Movies should be far more realistic in this respect than they ever were in the past.

Alan Bates is the wrong choice to play the Austrian Nazi Fuehrer. Perhaps I am unable to forget that Bates is a British Isle citizen in real life. Nevertheless, the casting didn't ring true. Liev Schreiber, though, is near perfect as the CIA operations officer who does the dirty work his superiors will disavow at a moment's notice. James Cromwell looks presidential and serves well as President Fowler. One of my favorite actors is Colm Feore. He is excellent as the diabolically amoral South African arms dealer. Feore deserved an academy award nomination a few years ago for his portrayal of the eccentric pianist Glenn Gould. It is deeply regretful that his part was not expanded in "The Sum of all Fears."

The movie was weakened considerably by director Phil Alden Robinson's decision to ignore the threat of Muslim terrorists. Tom Clancy included this danger in the book, but Robinson well meaningly (and I'm sure his heart was in the right place) publicly declared "that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs." Unfortunately, one is hard pressed to find terrorism experts who don't consider the Muslim fascists as the far greater worry. The audience is therefore left puzzled by such an oversight and the film loses much of its authenticity and relevance. I can't give "The Sum of all Fears" five stars, but only four.

Rating:
Summary: Awesome...not a dull moment!!!
Review: This movie was one of the best I have seen recently!! The actine was incredible, and the plot was thrilling. There was a lot of suspense, very exciting!! If you enjoy thrillers with a little romance and a lot of action, check this one out!! It has a somewhat political twist that makes it even more exciting, and it's just an all-around FANTASTIC movie!!

Rating:
Summary: Clancy should sue
Review: The "Sum of all Fears" is my favorite Clancy novel. It was probably his best and last before abandoning himself completely to the role of jingoistic cheerleader for right wing political causes. It contained a compelling and scary plot with a detailed and interesting exploration of three terrorists, one a leftover from the East German German Baaader-Meinhoff era, another a disaffected Native American and the third a a jaded product of the middle east terrorism training establishment. The film version predictably discards all of that in favor of a politically correct one dimensional right wing neo nazi plot.

To add insult to injury they transplant Ben Affleck into the role of a post adolescent Jack Ryan. Hello...Affleck is at best a light comic actor. Putting him in a role like this (or Pearl Harbor) is like casting Carrot Top as Hamlet. He is so not up to it.. There are maybe 3 minutes of interesting special effects. (you can see most of it in the trailer)Technical details (usually a hallmark of a Clancy yarn) are completely unbelievable. Bottom line: Wait for the video or better yet forget it entirely.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but familiar....
Review: Jack Ryan isn't getting older. And he isn't getting better. He's getting younger and he's turned into Ben Affleck, who is probably as good as Alec Baldwin (Ryan No. 1) but can't hope to match the crusty cool of Harrison Ford (Ryan No. 2).

The latest Ryan movie, "The Sum of All Fears," is based on Tom Clancy's sixth novel, written in 1991. The chronology may strike the casual observer as a bit skewed. Apparently, "Sum" is a kind of prequel that takes Ryan back to his days as a feckless CIA rookie. It shows him merely dating Cathy (Bridget Moynahan), who will become his future wife (Anne Archer in the Ford films).Yet, this movie is taking place in the present and that would mean...Oh, never mind. Let's all do the Time Warp again and let it go.

Anyway, Ryan is a greenhorn analyst whose particular expertise - he wrote a paper on a Russian official named Alexander Nemerov(Ciaran Hinds) - is now in great demand because Nemerov has just become the new president of Russia. Recruited by CIA director William Cabot (Morgan Freeman), Ryan quickly finds himself behind some very powerful closed doors, talking strategy with President Fowler (a very credible James Cromwell) and his top aides (Philip Baker Hall, Ron Rifkin and Bruce McGill).

Meanwhile, a neo-Nazi (Alan Bates) has acquired a nuclear bomb, which he plans to use to start a war between Russia and the U.S. The idea is first to detonate the bomb at the Super Bowl in Baltimore, which the President is attending, and then rachet up the tension until the U.S. is convinced Nemerov is on the attack, and the two countries blow each other into oblivion.

The bomb goes off - a harrowing sequence depicting a supposed low-level "dirty bomb" done in desaturated colors that shows us a very bleak Baltimore - isn't what the movie is about; it's about the aftermath. The confusion (particularly at the highest levels of government), the terror and, especially, the compassion as everyone tries to take care of everyone else.

Which, of course, echoes the confusion, terror and compassion that really happened on Sept. 11. That shocking moment in history is inevitably intertwined with any movie offering this kind of scenario. It may be too soon for some to watch.

It may be just right for others. The nine months distance does help. Our collective horrified memory - and remember, this movie was finished befire 9/11 - gives some considerable emotional heft to what would otherwise be another routinely professonal Clancy thriller. This time last year, the idea of a a nuclear explosion in Baltimore would strike the average viewer as unlikely, as far-fetched as a killer meteor. Now such an event has a chilling possibility. Something very close to it has already happened and seeing it imagined gives the picture a resonance it could never have summoned on its own.

"The Sum of All Fears" is more of an ensemble piece than earlier Ryan adventures. Freeman continues to be a magic ingredient for any movie - like adding butter and sugar to most recipes. Cromwell brings dignity and humanity to a familiar part. After the explosion, he's not only enraged that someone attacked America but that "they tried to kill me." Liev Schreiber shows up as an expert field operative (originally played by Willem Dafoe). Typically a cerebral actor, he's surprisingly convincing in an action role.

As for Affleck, he really isn't bad. His comic exchanges with Freeman are delightful and he can carry off the square-jawed-hero bit when called upon. But as movies like the recent "Changing Lanes" showed, he has a deft semi-comic touch. He should be playing some of the roles Hugh Grant turns down. The director, Phil Alden Robinson ("Field of Dreams"), isn't a conventional action director, but he handles the end-of-the-world stuff well. Plus, he brings a much-needed human dimension to the characters.

Early Summer 2002 is shaping up to be all about comic-book heroes and George Lucas fantasies. That makes a good ol' Hollywood action flick even more welcome. "The Sum of All Fears" may not be super-smart, but it's rock-solid. And a fine way to spend a few hours out of the summer heat.

Rating:
Summary: Forget the book
Review: I love Clancy's books, but just forget the book and take this as a film that has nothing to do with the book. A pretty good assumption here. Take the film for what it is: a great adventure film that borrows some items from the book. Exciting things happen in the film that weren't in the book either, so forget what didn't get carried over! Harry Potter was panned for being too close to the book. Just enjoy the film and forget there was ever a book by the same name. Then it's a great thriller.