Rating: 
Summary: What a waste
Review: If you're a fan of the novels written by Tom Clancy you'll start to wonder what planet he was on when he approved the screenplay for this movie. The most disappointing movie of the year is how I'd characterise this. First of all, the oft discussed time warp factor that Jack Ryan is put through. Its 2002 (29 years after 1973 when the Israeli jet carrying the nuke crashes) and Jack Ryan is a young sprightly CIA analyst with bad hair. He's dating Cathy Muller who has also mysteriously gotten younger. He meets John Clark, whom every fan of the novels knows he never set eyes on until Clear and Present Danger and goes into the field with him. I mean what was Clark thinking???
The only similarity with the book is that a nuclear weapon goes off in the United States. My advice, ignore the movie unless you've NEVER read the novels and focus on Clancy's writing..its far far better!
Rating: 
Summary: Better then I thought
Review: To anyone that is not a avid Tom Clancy reader or spends their spare time doing research on the worlds militaries, "Sum of All Fears" comes off as a decent thriller about terrorism. However a person who is a avid Tom Clancy Reader or knows his/her's military stuff, will view this movie as a piece of crap. John Patrick Ryan (Ben Affleck) is a young ex-marine working for the CIA as an analyst at the Russian Desk, who suddenly fines himself in over his head with conspiracy that, involves neo-nazis, a new Russian President and a secret nuke that is being built. Things rapidly go from bad to worse when a nuke goes off at a football game, killing everyone in the stadium and almost killing the president. With the world posed on nuclear war, Ryan must prove it wasn't the Russians while the president is ordering Snap Count. The support cast is composed of much talent, Liev Schreiber as the government spook John Clark (replacing William Defoe from Clear and Present Danger) Morgan Freeman as William Cabot, who in the book had a very small part. And James Cromwell as President Fouler. The problem with this movie is that it is holy unrealistic, they quote old cold war facts that are at lest twenty years old, and use material that simply doesn't correspond to real life. An Example of this is that Ryan and his fellow analyst are discussing the number of tanks Russia has, saying that NATO can't possible match the massive numbers of T-72 T-80s and T-90s, the only way NATO can beat the armor is using tactical nukes. That's bull, because of American's massive airforce is so powerful that four bombers can take out a half a tank division in a matter of seconds. Another example is that Ryan and Cabot are discussing the secret bomb being built, once that information goes out, a lot of red flags will go up around the world. Another problem with this movie is that it is 99% different from the book. The only thing from the book that is in the movie is the plot, that a nuke is lost in 1973 October War, terrorist make a new bomb with it and use it to start a war between USA and Russia, all of it run buy neo-nazis. In book the method of how the plot unfold completely different, in stead of neo nazis it was a large international group, composied of Palestinians, Saudis, Iranians, A native American, and some Red Army faction guys, they do it for different reasons. The best aspect of this DVD is that the commentary by Tom Clancy himself along with the director, that commentary is one of the best ones that I have every heard, that won major brownie points from me.
Rating: 
Summary: A point of view from Russia
Review: I am an American Citizen currently living in Russia. Just today a Russian friend came to visit. He is home for a visit from some schooling in America. He had viewed this film and was more than surprised at the content as it portrayed Russia in the very negative roll. He, of course, has a different perspective of the Russian people, political and economic system than Americans do - and as I did prior to living here. But maybe although this is an entertaining, albiet not too correctly done, film the movie makers should look at the way they treat the international community. Russia and America are closer in lots more ways than we might think! But for technical theater it should absolutely get 5 stars. Also for entertainment. And since nuclear conflict was the plot, so be the story. Although I suspect that conflict between the two countries involved is long past! So goes Hollywood and its stars!
Rating: 
Summary: not Harrison Ford but still as exciting.
Review: Ben Afleck is no Harrison Ford ( and no one will ever be), but the story is as exciting as the previous Tom Clancy books brought to the big screen. Well written and directed it kept me in suspense the whole way. Morgan Freeman was great as most of his movies and the action was done with great taste. I loved it and recomment it to anyone who likes this kinda action ( can't wait for the next James Bond)...
Rating:
Summary: Can One Man Save the World - Again?
Review: **1/2 "The Sum of All Fears" raises the question of just how appropriate it is to use a subject like global nuclear warfare as window dressing for what is, essentially, a pretty run-of-the-mill action/adventure melodrama. No subject matter is, of course, off limits when it comes to filmmaking - and that includes nuclear annihilation - but one can at least demand that the context and the treatment it receives be commensurate with the gravity of that subject. (One need only look back to 1983's "Testament" to see how this can indeed be done successfully). Even putting aside the questionable nature of the material, "The Sum of All Fears" turns out to be a pretty weak action film overall, surprisingly lacking in tension and suspense despite the high stakes nature of its premise. It's November 2002, and some higher-ups in the American government have discovered that a rogue nuclear missile is out there somewhere, most likely developed and planted by the quickly de-stabilizing Russian government. Or was it? Jack Ryan, that erstwhile hero of many of John Clancy's most popular novels, is the lone holdout who firmly believes that the bomb is NOT the work of the Russians but rather of some splinter terrorist group bent on setting off the device for their own nefarious purposes. Ask not how Jack Ryan, in his current incarnation in the form of young Ben Affleck, has managed to shave a few decades off his age (we should all learn that secret). What is amazing is that he seems to have regressed in stature as well. In fact, for most of the film, Ryan seems like a wide-eyed schoolboy, completely incapable of holding his own with all the heavyweights in which he comes into contact. Affleck, who managed to do some actual acting in the recent "Changing Lanes," is here reduced to a mere cipher, registering little more than openmouthed insipidity and rendering dull, emotionless line readings in the face of some pretty bland dialogue. Despite the fact that he somehow manages to save the world (I thought Chris Rock did that just a few weeks ago in "Bad Company"), Ryan never establishes a core of gravitas that might make his character even slightly believable. He is, in short, a mere bantamweight hero. The first half of the film suffers greatly from the plodding direction of Phil Alden Robinson, whose style consists in having characters sit around in dark rooms talking to one another. This is a particularly deadly technique when done in a wide screen format, since the effect of all those overblown close-ups coming one after another is to render the film strangely lumbering and static. Things pick up a bit in the second half, but the filmmakers are forced to level an entire American city to accomplish it. And even here, the pivotal scene in the film feels oddly truncated and aborted (one suspects that this depiction of urban destruction might have originally been longer and more elaborate but that sensitivity to the fears and emotions generated by the real life events of the past year may have encouraged the filmmakers to downplay it. I know the trailer appeared more graphic). When all is said and done, there just doesn't seem to be all that much urgency to anything that happens in "The Sum of All Fears," which is ludicrous considering the subject matter with which it is dealing. This tone is particularly egregious in the final scene, a devil-may-care, happy-go-lucky conclusion that reminds us that Hollywood is never at a loss to find ways of demeaning even the most grave and sensitive of material. In "The Sum of All Fears," even the possibility of the end of the world through mutually assured self-destruction turns out to be a yawner.
Rating:
Summary: True to the charachters not to the book
Review: I'm a Clancy fan having read all of his books to date some multiple times. I understand they tried to reset the chronology of the series with Ben Afleck and, once I got over the diversions from the book, I saw each of the charachters was true to Clancy's creation. Harrison Ford would not have worked here, especially after Clear and Present Danger. Had Afleck done that movie this one could have been much better but hey it's only a movie.
While it was an entertaining movie with great charachters, there were more than a few disappointments. I thought the Hollywood weenies that made the terrorist some Ludlum-esqe right wing conspiracy really missed the point. A radical Muslim group behind this was perfect, both in the book and given todays headlines.
I thought President Fowler was similar to the book but they missed an opportunity to really show a hack politician not being able to make the tough decisions without constantly thinking about how he was almost killed. The rage clouding his thinking was one of the better pieces of plot in the book.
I also missed Clark, the curren charachter really lacked the history in his face of a William Dafoe, as my wife put it, he was a little too pretty.
All in all it sets up the next few movies well, Fowler loses his stomach and doesn't run again, Ryan ascends quickly on his reputation of saving the world. Perfect set up for Debt of Honor. This was a good movie, true to the charachters but not to the book which i thought was Clancy's best.
Rating: 
Summary: Steaming pile...
Review: I did not expect the movie to be based on the book, but I did expect it to take itself seriously and with Tom Clancy at the helm, somewhat well researched. It views like a clumsy pastiche of the Bond movies, Pearl Harbor, and Armageddon, with a little romance thrown in on the side. Hasty, unrealistic decisions abound, with both sides scrambling to fire nukes, when most policies would reflect more careful consideration. Even at Ground Zero, Jack Ryan (whose name has been tarnished by this movie :() fails to suffer from radiation sickness, and the horrible descriptions of massacre we are lead to believe are never really shown. The best indication of the detonation comes from some collapsing buildings, a cheesy mushroom cloud no doubt done by computer animation, and some dust. There are too many glaring inconsistencies that pulled me out of the movie for me to enjoy it. If you want to watch this movie, wait until it comes out on video. I can't recommend it to the true Clancy fan without shedding tears.
Rating:
Summary: Faulty acting can't quite undermine terrifying tale
Review: There is a scene early in "The Sum of All Fears" where Morgan Freeman's character, Bill Cabot (deputy CIA director), tells Ben Affleck's Jack Ryan (now, a young CIA turk) to "pay attention, because you are about to breath air that's way over your pay grade". Freeman could very well have been speaking to Affleck in a real-life conversation in reference to acting. Freeman's mere presence runs circles around Affleck's attempts to act. Unfortunately, that is one negatives that prevents "Sum..." from being more of a landmark movie. I struggled with the decision over whether to give this movie 3 or 4 star. In the end, the acting deficiencies by some of main characters and some of the too-convenient plot devices, caused me to settle on 3 stars. While Affleck's acting left something to be desired, I can't be totally critical of his performance. He really did try. He put forth as workman-like an effort as anyone could hope for. He just simply does not have the talent or presence to fill the formidable shoes of an action hero like Jack Ryan. Action hero roles are proving to be a difficult type of acting. Add to that the premise of this movie, a nuclear attack on Baltimore followed by mounting tensions between the U.S. and Russia in its aftermath, and you have a tall order for any actor to fill. The true acting disaster in this movie belongs to Bridget Moynahan who plays his girl friend (soon-to-be wife) Cathy Muller. Moynahan's most notable previous work was as one of the dancing waitresses in "Coyote Ugly", not exactly a stellar pedigree. Maybe in time she will improve as an actress, but in "Sum of All Fears", Moynahan shows absolutely no acting or emotional range. Baltimore is in ruins, her boyfriend is off risking his life to prevent a full-scale nuclear war, she has to deal with nuclear victims at her hospital and her expression would make one think she was annoyed at missing a sale at Macy's, not that she has just witnessed one of the greatest tragedies visited upon U.S. soil. Having said my piece about two the main leads, let me focus now on the rest of the movie. The plot for "Sum of All Fears" is a very sobering one (and one that several real-life experts find to be very plausible). With the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise to nuclear power status of many Middle East nations, it's not inconceivable that a terrorist cell could get their hands on a single nuclear weapon and transport it to the United States. In this movie, an Israeli jet equipped with a nuclear bomb is shot down during a skirmish between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors in 1973. Fast forward a few decades and the bomb has been unearthed by some scavengers who are unaware of its true purpose. A group of Nazi-loyalists track down the rogue bomb and procure it for their purposes. The purposes being destroying a major U.S. city and making it appear that Russia was behind it in order to start a full scale nuclear war between to the two nations. In the aftermath, the Nazi's plan to use the chaos to reclaim worldwide power (at least that seems to be the plan. It's not extraordinarily clear). The concept of a nuclear terrorist attack is a very scary, very real scenario that hits home even harder in the aftermath of 9/11 and the discovering of an Al-Qaeda member planning to set off a radioactive 'dirty bomb'. This situation is handled with appropriate degrees of plausibility. The suddenness of the nuclear detonation in Baltimore combined its signature shockwaves and mushroom cloud are visions that are horrifying to view makes one hope to never have to in real life. The reactions by the President (played ably by James Cromwell) and the rest of his cabinet seem very real and very human. They aren't ice-cold, calm, and calculating in determining how to respond to this devastation. They react emotionally, confused, and frustrated. It is how one would expect leaders to react behind closed doors during such a tremendous crisis. One would think President Bush and his advisors had moments similar to those in the movie in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The rising tension as one incident after another pushes the U.S. and Russia closer to nuclear war is palpable. It's frightening to see how, for the right money and opportunity, such plans can come to fruition. "Sum of All Fears" is a well-done movie and will leave the audience captivated as they watch the progression of events. There is just a feeling, though, that this movie could have been something more with different casting choices.
Rating:
Summary: It's a *movie* folks...
Review: I've read Clancy (but not this one) and I've seen all the "Clancy" movies many times. My wife drives me nuts by saying, "that wouldn't happen..." so I understand all you who try to analyze the plot for theoretical accuracy. But.... this is a work of entertainment based on fictional accounts of political conflict. Did it entertain? Absolutely. Did Affleck portray Jack Ryan the way Clancy wrote him? Of course. Are the plot points of the movie plausible? Well, maybe, but - that's the point of Clancy. In case you didn't notice, Tom Clancy was executive producer of this film so he certainly had considerable input. Yeah, they changed the chronology of Jack Ryan. Whooppee! That makes Debt of Honor and Executive Orders completely future potential for Ben Affleck as Ryan considering they can now do Cardinal of the Kremlin which they couldn't have done with Harrison Ford. Hmmmm, do we want to see more Clancy movies? Yes!
Rating:
Summary: A Waste of Time
Review: So, this is the mighty Tom Clancy... I've seen boring and convoluted movies in my life, but this one beats them all. I had been warned by some friends who had liked the movie that the first half of it was going to be slow and boring, and that was certainly the case. The sad part was that even the second half was not good. The problems with the movie are the following: the plot pretends to be high-level political conspiracy, but it looks like a child play after you read books like "The Unseen Hand" by Ralph Epperson. The acting is mediocre, except for Morgan Freeman. The lead character interpreted by Ben Affleck is uninteresting, and so is his love story. The climax of the movie was supposed to be the explosion of the nuclear bomb in Baltimore, and the literally "bombed" it by showing pretty much nothing. In conclusion, if I had not been there with some friends, I would have walked out.
|
