Hey folks, Harry here... These reviews all have major spoilers in them. The first was from a reader that loved it. The second from a reviewer that hated it and was offended personally by the film as was his audience and the third was someone that was just bored. What does this say about the film... Well, that the movie does have the ability to press different buttons on different people... who will react very differently. Again, BEWARE OF MAJOR SPOILERS.... Here ya go...
hi harry-
ive been reading your website on and off for awhile now, just checking up on
what youve had to say about movies ive seen or want to see. youve got a good
thing going.. anyway, i dont know if a lot of people have seen it, i read you
saw it last night.. but tonight they gave a sneak preview here on campus
(university of maryland) of the sum of all fears. i totally agree with your
opinion. the sound in our theater is pretty crappy, so in the beginning, kids
were whispering periodically asking "whatd he/she say?". but when the bomb
went off at the game, it was so picturesque to see everyone stop talking and
be zoned in the movie from there on in. it really was like it was happening
to us. i dont know if thats cause we are 20 minutes from baltimore or not,
but it was apparent. i have read the book. the beginning is quite different.
however for the most part the movie stayed true. i love how the last scene
that russian guy comes over and says maybe someday you and i will be able to
communicate as he did with morgan freeman. i dont know if your aware, but in
debt of honor (the next ryan book in the clancy series), ryan becomes
director of the c.i.a. so the foreshadowing portrayed was excellent. i dont
know if we saw the final cut or not, the beginning said this was a "work in
progress", but i will be anxious to see it in theatres. i think affleck was
right on the money, like baldwin, and not ford, with his undertone sense of
humor. i think its exactly how clancy wanted us to see jack ryan as. thats
all really. dont know if you read these or not, but just thought i should
write in and say i loved this movie too, and really did justice to the book.
cheers mate.
-jay
Then here is Pendragon, who seems has been personally offended by SUM OF ALL FEARS on multiple fronts. Living in Manhattan, he and apparently his New York audience felt quite a bit violated by the film. Then this being a young Jack Ryan seems to have caused some adjustment issues from the previous films that he just wasn't down with. Imagining this as a NEW BEGINNING for the Jack Ryan character.... Much like John Byrne's SUPERMAN... is probably very apt. Also beware of MAJOR SPOILERS in this review.
Pendragon here, with a Manhattan-centric review of "The Sum of All Fears" -
hope you can use it.
"The Sum of All Fears" is a true cinematic disaster, and an offensive
disaster at that. I attended a work-print screening of this new film last
week, in the company of a Manhattan audience bored stiff and coldly alienated
by "Fears'" fatal flaws.
Ben Affleck slouches unmemorably into the film's starring role. He plays CIA
analyst Jack Ryan, a character previously animated by two older and superior
thespians (Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford). Most actors in this film, from
the presidential James Cromwell to the underutilized Liev Schreiber to
whomever plays the incoherent nomad dying from radiation poisoning, display
more powerful charisma than Affleck can muster.
Yet the tepid star is the least of this film's troubles. Three previous Tom
Clancy films ("The Hunt For Red October," "Patriot Games" and "Clear and
Present Danger") established a reasonable chronology of events for Jack Ryan,
his family and his coworkers. Ryan's character is younger in this film than
in any of the other three, but "Fears" improbably takes place in the
present-day, making this installment both a prequel and a sequel (a feat
which no film other than "Godfather II" has ever managed to pull off
successfully).
The continuity problem in "Fears" is staggering. Affleck's Jack Ryan is a
CIA neophyte, bumbling through a relationship with a young nurse, while
Ford's and Baldwin's married versions of the same character had achieved
senior CIA status in the previous films. Those movies were set in the late
stages of the Cold War and in the early 90's, yet in this film, Palm Pilots
deliver email and Bill Clinton's presidency has already ended.
When Harrison Ford turned down the opportunity to star in "Fears," the
producers apparently pinned their hopes on Affleck's box-office drawing power
and mangled Clancy's novel to accommodate the young star. That Clancy - a
producer of the film - was party to this travesty in no way diminishes its
outrageousness. In an industry that relies heavily on geek dollar power and
word-of-mouth advertising, it is folly for producers to neglect the interests
of loyal, watchful fans by allowing glaring plot-related inconsistencies.
But bizarre as Jack Ryan's chronological readjustment in "Fears" may be, the
most troubling element of the film has nothing to do with its protagonist.
[NOTE TO READERS: I am about to reveal the climax of the film, so that you
don't have to suffer through it first-hand].
Near the end of the movie, terrorists plant a stolen nuclear warhead in a
vending machine beneath a fictional Baltimore football stadium. The
detonation of the device kills thousands, characters refer to the site of the
blast as "ground zero," debris is strewn in the air for miles and
respirator-clad rescuers lift charred victims from the rubble. These
elements of the film are jarringly reminiscent of both the September 11
attacks on New York and Washington and of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Such disturbing parallels were not lost on the audience at the screening I
attended; a number of spectators walked out after the explosion sequence, and
others expressed extreme discomfort with the film's imagery and timing.
Crowd reaction was extremely muted during the rest of the film. Afterwards,
spectators voiced concerns that "Fear's" filmmakers were exploiting recent
tragedy for entertainment value.
Unlike Arnold Schwarzenneger's cartoonish film "Collateral Damage," which
also depicted terrorist activities against Americans and was released after
the September 11 attacks, "The Sum Of All Fears" employs intensely realistic
imagery to illustrate a terrorist attack and its immediate aftermath. Yet
the rest of the film has a jaunty, adventurous tone; the gravity of this
central event, and of the recent real-world memories it evokes, clashes with
the flippant entertainment values of the film as a whole.
Perhaps studio executives in Los Angeles have the luxury, or financial
necessity, of forgetting how the East Coast suffered last September. Perhaps
the geniuses at Paramount Pictures have decided that our grieving period in
Manhattan is over. Apparently, this film's creative and distribution teams
have no qualms about pouring salt on the nation's wounds by releasing what
amounts to a greatest-hits collection of recent terrorist tragedies. No
doubt, Al Qaeda and Hamas masterminds will be looking to this film for
inspiration once it goes into worldwide release. Vending machines in major
American metropolises may soon be transformed, by copycat hands, into
deathtraps.
National security aside, New York audiences are not ready for a popcorn
action epic that includes a stark portrayal of a tragedy so like the one we
recently endured.
If I were Affleck, I'd be using white-out on my resume once this mess hits
the theaters. And if I were among the amoral brass at Paramount, I'd prepare
to kiss my cushy job goodbye. "The Sum of All Fears" is an utterly
inappropriate film to release at this time, and an inane enough production to
be kept away from the public indefinitely.
Here's another one that I don't agree with...
Harry,
I saw a sneak preview of 'Sum of All Fears' in Atlanta Monday night and,
after reading your glowing, almost masturbatory review ("Sum', BTW, has more
in common with 'The Black Bird' than "The Maltese Falcon'), am beginning to
think either we saw different films or that you're aggressively mixing
lithium with your Goobers. Though the print I saw was quite good, 'Sum' was
a major disappointment - predictable (both in plot and direction), muddled,
and lifeless.
The only good thing that stands out are the performances, especially Morgan
Freeman, Philip Baker Hall, James Cromwell, and Alan Bates. However, none of
them exceed previous performances - they merely play characters similar to
ones they've played before, and do a fine, workman-like job doing so.
Freeman and Cromwell, in particular, covered much the same ground in similar
though flip-flopped roles in 'Deep Impact'. Ben Affleck holds his own, but
doesn't bring Baldwin's intelligence nor Ford's grittiness to the role. He
is the Timothy Dalton of Jack Ryan portrayers, which at least means he's not
the George Lazenby of them.
And Liev Schieber is just plain silly and unbelievable playing a field op.
One of the film's fatal faults is that it rushes through scenes when it
should linger (the anticipation of the detonation of the bomb at the
football game, the initial effects of the blast, Ryan's mad dash around
Baltimore for clues, etc.), and lingers when it should use short-hand (how
the bomb gets lost and recovered; all scenes involving Ryan and his love
interest - a better film would cut the entire relationship out of the film
since it adds nothing but one good comedic moment, which is Ryan's
explanation to her from an airplane regarding what he does for a living; all
the muck in the middle involving Liev's op work). In addition, too many
things just suddenly 'happen', without any build-up (the arrival of the pols
at the game, the movement of the bomb to and through the U.S., the effect of
the fall-out, etc.). All this results in an uneven, ambling plot that never
caught me in its grip. Somehow, Robinson has made a boring film from an
exciting franchise, and this is easily the weakest of the four Ryan films.
As I left the theater, I listened closely to other viewer's conversations,
wondering if I just didn't get it. No - most were feeling like me, wondering
why they didn't see a better film, which, given its lineage and
participation, it should have been.
What we have here is a disappointing film; not an incompetent film, like
'Rollerball', but something even worse - a film that had me checking my
watch constantly from the 30 minute mark right up to the end.
It's not bad, per se - just boring. And in my book, that's worse than bad.
Just my 2 pesos.
Simon
|
