The Sum of All Fears
Went and saw this last night. I thought it was as good as Hunt for Red October in the Jack Ryan series. It had the epic quality to it that the other two didn't quite reach. I was a little leery of a younger Jack Ryan, but Affleck does quite well, I thought. They also changed the plot from the book, but the changes work. At least they kept the major plot point in (Think Superbowl) which Harrison wanted cut if he was going to do the picture.
I liked how the scene changes used satellite maps. It reminded me there's ALWAYS somebody watching.
The part I didn't like was the Hollywood slo-mo run with the flames spouting up behind him. Very cheese.
The Godfather-esque sequence at the end raised my eyebrows a bit as well. Not bad, just...odd.
They sure are releasing alot "terrorist" themed movies lately. I thought there was this big movement since 9/11 to try to suppress these kind of movies coming out, with old Arnie Shwartzy putting his movie on hold and all. Maybe America is coming back to its senses and not let these terror goons win!!!!!!!!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. but I was more disappointed than EP at how different the film was from the book. Clancy did an amazing job in the book of developing the characters, but the film seemed to care almost solely about establishing Afflek as Ryan. I was hoping to see much more of the bomb creating portion and its characters. The book also did a much better job of portraying the emotional meltdown among Fowler & his closest staff during the frantic escalation of hostilities with the russians. The differences in how and where the bomb was delivered, and how it detonated were disappointing to me, too. I recall thinking how Clancy came across as a bit of a misogynist in the book, in how he wrote the behavior of the female character in the president's cabinet, so I guess it's little surprise that in today's PC society that that part of the book wouldn't make it to the screen.
So, did anyone else feel like the last scene setup a sequel for "Cardinal of the Kremlin"?
I do understand that films don't usually have the time or budget to transform a book into a film completely & faithfully. But I think that Red October & Clear & Present Danger were much truer to their books. I also think Affleck works okay as the younger Ryan. If they take about three years between releases, and make films of all the remaining books, he could age nicely into the role.
Losing Dafoe as John Clark was a drag, since I thought he made a perfect Clark. Liev Schrieber was good, but I had more trouble accepting the change in actors for that character than I had for the change from Ford to Affleck. This was a different role than the past ones I've seen from Schrieber, and I thought he handled the professional spy persona wonderfully. He's definitely an up-n-comer. I would never have thought to pick him for Clark, but now I wouldn't mind seeing him in Without Remorse. The one problem in that is the age difference between the Clark & Ryan characters in the books is greater than Schrieber & Affleck's apparent ages.
okay, I'll shut up.....
but I still did enjoy the movie.... ;)
I haven't read the book nor have I seen the film.
I heard that they changed the villians from Arab terrorists to Nazi Skinheads. Is this true, and if so, do you find it idiotic or a good change in light of real life events.
Also, the reviews I've read said that the drama and carnage now pale in comparison to real life now that we've seen actually tragedy on our own soil. Did you find this to be the case?
i have not read the book, but this was being discussed on a tv show, and they said the bad guys were neo-nazis in the book also.
now i just read in a movie review that the bad guys were changed from arabs to nazis. someone who has read the book set me straight.:)
They were arabs and Native American extremists, of all things.
Does it pale in comparison to real life? I'm not sure. I think it gives the viewer pause when tragic events occur in the film, whereas a year ago, it would have glossed over as just another explosion. Even the aircraft carrier getting hit was a little more somber.
I think we used to watch movies like this with a detachment, now we see it and think. "Hey. That could happen. It HAS happened..." It changes your perspective.
I just don't like Ben (Afleck). He makes me not want to see it. I am afraid it will remind me of the horror that was Pearl Harbor and Armageddon.
I'm with QLD as far as having reservations about Affleck's acting abilities (read: lack thereof). Also, the change from Ford to Affleck gives me room to pause.
However, I've always valued EP's movie critiques. The story entrigues me (Clancy's stuff is good, and if it's as good as Red October...cool!), so with that combination, I'll give it a chance and go see it.