Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

SUM OF ALL FEARS review

Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan by RogueScribner	Apr 24th, 2002 05:07:49 AM
Can he pull it off? I'd have to agree with Harry that his last true performance was in Chasing Amy. I never really got jazzed about the Jack Ryan movies. Maybe that'll change with this one. It's nice to know Phil Alden Robinson is doing something again. L8r
A lesser man would shout "First" by RoyComplain	Apr 24th, 2002 05:10:27 AM
But I won't. Let the Affleck-hating begin then, you bunch of jealous fucks.
This is GOOD!?!! by Cash Bailey	Apr 24th, 2002 05:56:57 AM
I love Affleck in Kevin Smith flicks (not to mention that he was the bomb in PHANTOMS, yo!) but I was also one of the ones that hated him being cast as Jack Ryan. After REINDEER GAMES, BOUNCE and PEARL HARBOUR it's good to see the big lug actually cracking a good film. I've got nothing profound to say, but this movie may actually get my money if it's half as good as Harry says it is.
I debated the subject line for like 10 minutes... by Tres Skeek	Apr 24th, 2002 05:59:04 AM

I'm one of the people who has been complaining about this ad by MGTHEDJ	Apr 24th, 2002 05:59:09 AM
But I did not know Paul Attanasio is one of the people who wrote the script (hey stop that, so I did not go to the official website or look it up on IMDB, sue me). He is VERY good (he co-created and co-wrote "Homicide"). This may be in the tradition of "The Firm": radically different from the book but still a lot of fun. I may have to see this after all. I'll wait for the other big guns to report in: Time, Newsweek, Ebert, Rolling Stone, and of course Moriarty.-----later-----m
Well,I for one am...... by Splinter	Apr 24th, 2002 06:02:51 AM
...VERY SURPRISED. And delighted. I LOVE when movies I thought were going to rubbish turn out to be excellent - I haven't seen this yet, but I've read enough reviews by people I respect to believe the hype - Nick over at CHUD called this the best movie he's seen this year. What a wonderful world this would be if ALL movies turned out to be brilliant - thats what we all, as film-geeks, scretly hope for, right? Remember the adulation and RELIEF when you realised Fellowship was bloody wonderful? Here's HOPING AND PRAYING AOTC surprises us...because the ghost of the Phantom MAN-ASS is still cackling.
If they ARE NOT paying you... by Tres Skeek	Apr 24th, 2002 06:05:27 AM
...to shill this piece of shit film, then I truly feel bad for you, Hairy. If you really and truly believe that "The Sum of All Fears" is one of the best cast, best acted, best written, best directed spy movies you've ever seen, then you truly are insane. If you confuse the mouth-breathing lunkheaded Ben Affleck's "acting" in this film as confident, then you REALLY need to seek psychiatric help. If you really believe...ah, fuck it. Words are wasted on you, you feculent flab factory. *Oh, and lest anyone be confused, there's not a single word in Hairy's book that was written by him. He was interviewed by Mark Ebner and the book was written by Paul Cullum. Fact.*
Why do people hate Ben? by alpha	Apr 24th, 2002 06:06:03 AM
He's done some good films and some shockers but when you see the guy taking the piss out of his image in Jay & Silent Bob you realise that for all his faults he at least has some sort perspective. I think he'll be a good Daredevil and from the reviews it sounds like he's a decent Jack Ryan.
What a surprise... by Ernst Blofeld	Apr 24th, 2002 06:07:41 AM
I really hadn't considered this film as anything worthwhile. I felt a movie that Harrison had passed on would be pretty second rate. But I'm looking forward to this now, even with my hatred of virtually everything Affleck has done - he still needs to redeem himself for that Animal Cracker shit. Ah movies, they'll surprise you.
Comparing Sum of All Fears to Maltese Falcon and Godfather 2? by Fitzy Funk	Apr 24th, 2002 06:16:51 AM
Harry, I love ya like a brother, but stop it with the exaggerated reviews already (Godzilla, Phantom Menace, the godawful review for the godawful Blade 2). I admire your enthusiasm, but your unabashed praise for such shlock is going to rear its ugly head sooner rather than later. Is Sum of All Fears any good? It just may well be, but I simply don't trust your review.
Whatever happened to Without Remorse? by Alexandre Dumas	Apr 24th, 2002 06:19:45 AM
Hi....on a related subject, I remember a few years back that Tom Clancy was producing Without Remorse with Willem Dafoe reprising his role as Mr. Clark. This was out of his, and my own, frustration at how bad the Harrison Ford Jack Ryan films were. If somebody knows whatever happened to that....I'd love to hear about it. I thought Alec Baldwin was perfect as Ryan, Ford takes too much power over the director and scripting as consequently the movies sucked (Patriot Games was pure shite!) and I am not sure about Affleck. Affleck is a sissy-boy, and I doubt he can act intelligent enought to play Ryan. It also wouldn't be the first time Harry used words like "best ever" on a pure, unadulterated cinematic pile of shite! (Blade 2 anyone?)See everyone at Episode 2! AD
"Real Jack Ryans should be intelligent and talk" by MartinBlank	Apr 24th, 2002 06:24:59 AM
Well, they should.
Please don't make comparisons by DannyOcean01	Apr 24th, 2002 06:26:18 AM
Great review, but I'm going to feel sick if it doesn't compare to The Maltese Falcon. Nice compact review though.
Just Wondering - Tres Skeek... by Yoor-Peon	Apr 24th, 2002 07:52:54 AM
Have you seen 'Sum Of All Fears' ? You seem to dislike it intensely, so I'd be interested to read YOUR review. Perhaps an absence of opposable thumbs does count as an impediment to typing, so never mind. Have a nice day y'all
C'MON HARRY! There's no FUCKING way! Affleck is a total by chuckrussel	Apr 24th, 2002 07:55:38 AM
YEAH!
Without Dafoe by silentjay	Apr 24th, 2002 08:02:18 AM
William Dafoe does indeed rock. But I didn't think we was properly cast as Mr. Clark. Clark was your neighbor. A good guy, friendly, helped children, saved puppies. but then SNAP! he'd put your ass in a homemade decompression chamber and send you to hell without...any...Remorse...hey. ..that would make a cool movie. Anyway, thats my favorite Clancy book. Out.
Setec Astronomy by ZooTrain	Apr 24th, 2002 08:27:50 AM
This is because Phil Alden Robinson rocks. Why hasn't he worked in ten years? That's a crime in itself. Okay, "In the Mood" wasn't great. It wasn't horrible...just not good. As for "Field of Dreams" and "Sneakers," well. "Sneakers," I think, is one of the great underappreciated films of the 90s. One of the best serio-comic heist thrillers out there. I had no hope for this movie until I saw that Phil was directing. He may not be prolific, but at least he's consistent. Personally, I think the greatest crime of the season will come with Adam Sandler's "retelling" of "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town." The trailer makes me ill. Why piss on a classic? Adam Sandler should be ashamed of himself...for this and many other reasons. What were we talking about again?
I'm still not convinced and Without Remorse by holidill	Apr 24th, 2002 08:49:28 AM
I'm not in to much of a hurry to see this film, though I do love James Cromwell and Morgan Freeman. One of the things I heard about Without Remorse, it takes place in the past during Vietnam I believe, John McTiernan was set to direct with Gary Siniese in the main role. I heard money issues, or script problems. But this was a film I would've loved to see.
yeah, but at the end does Affleck want to have a 3-way? by General Idea	Apr 24th, 2002 09:05:42 AM
Doesn't he tell Morgan Freeman and his girlfriend that he wants to have a 3-way with them? Anyhow, I love when you're shocked at how much better a movie is than you expected. I can't imagine praising Benny, but hope he proves me wrong. Plus Sneakers and Field of Dreams were both quite good, I have faith in Phil.
Did you even really watch the movie?? by filmgirl77	Apr 24th, 2002 09:33:20 AM
Harry - terrible review.... you need a freakin editor. 1st off.... it's Bridget MOYnihan... you can look that up on IMDB for crying out loud. 2nd off - her character has and always will be a DOCTOR - did you not watch any of the Jack Ryan films for crying out loud. Just because she's a woman doesn't automatically make her a nurse. Meanwhile shame on you for not even mentioning Ron Rifkin in your review - turned in a brief but amazing performance in this movie. And for all those non-believers out there - it's the best Jack Ryan movie yet - hands down - Harry isn't lying.
That's Moynahan. by Christopher3	Apr 24th, 2002 09:38:22 AM
Don't want the Irish after you.
Yes, Yoor Poon, I HAVE seen it... by Tres Skeek	Apr 24th, 2002 09:39:14 AM
In fact, I was one of the first talkbackers to offer an opinion back in October. Search for the first reviews of this turgid suckfest on AICN and you'll find my review.
Im seeing it by superdave	Apr 24th, 2002 10:19:32 AM
Good review. But is it really the best spy thriller ever made?
"I haven by The Grin	Apr 24th, 2002 10:29:49 AM
But Harry, did you see "Changing Lanes"? I'm not a big Affleck fan, but I thought he was very impressive there... The Grin
continuity question by CosDashit	Apr 24th, 2002 10:35:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Harrison Ford and Willem Dafoe met for the first time (in character) in Clear and Present Danger. If this comes before that, then Ben Affleck and Liev (Clarke) Schreiber should not meet in this movie. Or is this going to be like that whole fiasco of what's his wife's last name, Cathy or Caroline? Or does that simply not get changed because the book wasn't a prequel?
You Should Not Use Words Like "Turgid" by mrbeaks	Apr 24th, 2002 10:47:56 AM
They do not suit you. Next time, try "poopie", "crapalicious", or "mommy, the box says I should microwave these fish sticks for 2 1/2 minutes, but they always come out cold. If I left them in for three minutes, would Jesus think less of me? Would my Willie Gault rookie card decrease in value? Would I lose your love?" I hope this helps.
I'll believe it when I see it... on TV. by Spab	Apr 24th, 2002 10:50:39 AM
Or when at least three non-AICN reviewers I respect tell me this is a fine movie. Even then I still won't go out and see it. You know, they did make a good film out of a Mike Hammer book, by completely disowning the hero and all he stands for (Kiss Me Deadly), but I don't think this is what happened here. Tom Clancy is not Dashiell Hammett. He is no John Le Carre. The best you can say for Clancy is he does is research. Wake me up when normalcy is restored.
See Christian Duguay's "The Assignment" by tonyblac	Apr 24th, 2002 11:37:50 AM
It's a really good spy movie.
Speaking of good Affleck roles, "Changing Lanes" kicked ass! by BigTuna	Apr 24th, 2002 11:47:07 AM
This site hasn't praised this fine film as much as it deserves. I was suprised at how much of a solid, unpredictable thriller it turned out to be. I use to hate Affleck, but he was very good in that film and if SOAF's is half as good as Harry and others claim, Alleck may be in my good books.
Say... by rev_skarekroe	Apr 24th, 2002 12:01:07 PM
...wasn't there are Star Wars article up earlier today? What happened to that? And what's everybody's problem with Affleck, except that he's the hip guy to bash amongst the dork community? sk
Oh wait, there it is. by rev_skarekroe	Apr 24th, 2002 12:04:34 PM
They put it in the TV category. Please ignore me and go on debating the merits of an ok actor and his film based on books that I stopped reading when I was 15 (not that that's a criticism. Just a fact). sk
by Chaka_Not_Fraid	Apr 24th, 2002 12:06:31 PM
Excellent review Harry. Told me everything I wanted to know. And pretty entertaining to boot. And for the record, I thought the trailer was damn good. Was that an aircraft carrier getting attacked with stand-off missiles? Ah, the old days of playing Harpoon are coming back to me....
My Gaydar by Pageiv	Apr 24th, 2002 12:11:45 PM
I'm I the only one whose Gaydar jumps off the the charts when Afflek is on screen? The best part about Afflek is that duck that sells insurance (supplemental insurance) on TV that keeps spouting "Afflek" "Afflek". Anyway, I'm sleep deprived today...
Freeman's old sage Glory role predates old sage Seven role. by durhay	Apr 24th, 2002 12:50:55 PM

You even forgot old sage role in Shawshank Redemption! by durhay	Apr 24th, 2002 12:51:44 PM
C'mon!
I don't know about the film, but the trailer is honestly one by jrcash	Apr 24th, 2002 12:52:17 PM

Get a dictionary by Karla	Apr 24th, 2002 01:01:30 PM
The Harrison Ford Jack Ryan movies are "disappointing and droll"? Disappointing, maybe, but droll = "having a humorous, whimsical quality". Perhaps Harry meant dull? Its this kind of stuff that keeps me from buying Harry's book.
About Harry: have you noticed... by Super Unko	Apr 24th, 2002 01:03:47 PM
Harry's review simply aren't very good. Even when I agree with his opinion on the movie, the reviews are weak. He's well informed, he's got good taste in movies,and his love for movie is unquestioned, but his writing is damn mediocore!
Donnie Darko Lives!!! by Boris Grushenko	Apr 24th, 2002 01:08:40 PM
Fuck this Ben Affleck shit!!! I just saw Donnie Darko on DVD the other night and it blew me away. I don't know how I missed it when it was in the theatres last year (maybe the fact that it never played in more than 200 theatres, and only played for 3-4 weeks had something to do with it), but sheeeeeeeeeooooooottttt, that Donnie D is one cool kid. His riff on the Smurfs was classic. Long live Richard Kelly. Someone give this kid another $5 million and let him make another movie. Just a wild, sprawling, everything-but-the-kitchen-sin k, kind of movie. Go buy the DVD. If any film of 2001 is destined for cult status, then Donnie Darko is it. Mark my words, this movie will build via word of mouth through video/DVD rentals and become a cult classic. You can have your shitty Evil Dead movies, just give me Donnie D!!! Final note: any film that features Echo & the Bunnymen, Joy Division, and the Church deserves 4 stars based on that alone. Mad World.
wowie by carouselambra	Apr 24th, 2002 01:09:41 PM
"He isn
Donnie Darko was awesome! by Mr Glass	Apr 24th, 2002 01:47:11 PM
I totally agree with you man. I saw Donnie Darko last week and I kept on playing the hallway sequence where they had Tears for fears "Head over Heels" on over and over again. I really loved that movie except for the fact that the ending was kinda ambiguous and you really needed the website, the deleted scenes, and the audio commentary to understand it all cause as a stand alone feature it kinda needs an appendix. Jena Malone has taken over as my new jailbait fantasy. So long, Natalie Portman. If you liked this movie also see ghost world cuase that movie is also as good. I think that also has an echo and the bunnymen song on it.
Movie adaptations, and the Sum of All Fears by Caine	Apr 24th, 2002 01:52:23 PM
Why is it, when somoone adapts a comic book or graphic novel to film, there is so much concern for "getting it right", and "staying true to the fans" - yet in the case of a novel such as this one (or the Bourne Identity for that matter) that kind of adherence to consistancy is seen as baggage? Come on Harry, if Raimi had made RADICAL alterations in Spider-Man, you would have defecated bricks and spewed vitriol in long metaphorical rants against it. BUT, you walk into this movie without the "baggage" of having read the books, looking at this as purely a spy movie with names that are sort of familliar, and extol its virtues to no end. Granted, Tom Clancy's real talent relies in conveying technological info and to a lesser extent, political intrigue. His character development is a little flaky (in my opinion) sometimes, but it is not as bad as it could be. However, there is a great deal of character development in these books, and skipping over all of that, or better yet re-writing it, would be akin to turning Peter Parker into a criminal bully once he develops his abilities. Those that are familiar with the story see it as a crime to the story, the characters, and the original creator(s). * I have not seen the movie. I do not plan to. I am familliar with the story, having read the book, and do not wish to see it told "incorrectly" - especially considering that there have been at least 4 novels worth of character development preceeding them. Supporting characters that have DIRRECT influence on the movie and the plot are omitted, and many things that were introduced in the novel "Clear and Present Danger" make no appearance at all. My biggest beef with this movie is not in casting Ben Affleck - his inexperienced Jack Ryan would have made more sense in "Patriot Games", as that was the story that took Jack Ryan into the CIA to begin with. My problem is the continuity. In "the Sum of ALL Fears" Jack Ryan has been with the CIA for quite awhile. He has tremendous responsibilities, long-standing emotional baggage, and concern for his wife and children weighing in on his mind, as well as the fate of the planet. He is not some rookie learning the ropes, he is the more seasoned professional. Characters like John Clark, Domingo Chavez, Robbie Jackson (I see Sam Jackson every time I think of that character), MRS Ryan, Dr Elizabeth Elliot, have all been either marginalized, omitted, or totally rewritten. I understand that a novel in excess of 1000 pages cannot be adapted to everyone's liking. Concessions must be made, and SOMETHING has to be omitted or changed. This adaptation goes far beyond that: It has distilled only the basic elements of the novel: Someone finds an old Israeli Nuclear warhead, and plans on deonating it at the Superbowl to start WWIII - a guy at the CIA named Jack Ryan saves the day and stops Nuclear War. * "I know people were griping about adaptation issues and the changing of Ryan character, the juggling of the bad guys and the period issues. However, that baggage was not with me when I saw this movie..." Interesting isn't it, when the subject matter is something Harry does not like or is not familliar with, adherence to the books is considered 'baggage' or "never made me feel that what was happening had anything to do with the world I was in." Yet when it is SPIDER-MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, or 3 novels about some errant malicious jewelry, adherence to the source material is CRUCIAL, and your liking of the film is BASED on the 'baggage' you are carrying with you.
Actually, Red October is by far the WORST of the 3 movies so far by togmeister	Apr 24th, 2002 02:21:51 PM
Sorry, i really have tried, but i still see that movie as the beginning of the once-great John Mctiernan's decline into mediocrity (or maybe he's just been unlucky - 13th Warrior had some cool stuff in it but Crichton mangled it in the cutting room). Tim Curry as a Russian doctor??!! As far as i'm concerned, only the Zucker brother could get away with that. Ben Affleck over INDIANA BLOODY JONES??????!!! Liev Schrieber over Willem Dafoe?????!!! Please - don't try to sell me that. I'll see the movie because Phil Alden Robinson does not work nearly often enough, and James Cromwell, Ron Rifkin and Philip Baker Hall - well, they kick ass.
Matt Drudge - Not agree w/his politics??? Is he running for offi by Fandude	Apr 24th, 2002 02:28:35 PM
All Matt is doing is posting every left-wing nut and right-wing nut on his website. What exactly are his politics???? Pretty weird man. Enough of that. Sharon Stone redeemed herself with Casino. I suppose Ben Efflected can redeem himself with Sum of All Fears, we'll see. FaNdUdE
Why Was "The Maltese Falcon" So Good? by Ardee-El	Apr 24th, 2002 02:36:11 PM

Personally, I Think The Only Way To Make Clancy Work On Film.... by mrbeaks	Apr 24th, 2002 02:48:06 PM
..... is to pare down the oftentimes ridiculous subplots cluttering his poorly-written novels (the last one I read was CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, and that was more than enough for me, though I've been told that I'd like WITHOUT REMORSE), as well as the techno-fetishism for which he's renowned. That said, I thought the tone of CAPD was fairly close to the book, and that, in terms of transferring a novel to film, is "getting it right". I mean, even a good writer, like James Ellroy, understands this necessity of elimination, since its absolutely impossible to fully communicate his unique sense of heightened tabloid-speak and gonzo, massively unsympathetic characterization across in this medium. The filmmakers just try to get as close as they can, and I think, the author's protestations aside, that's always been Paramount's intent, along with making a marketable product, which a pro-corporate Republican like Clancy should not only understand, but salute.
Why Was "The Maltese Falcon" So Good? by Ardee-El	Apr 24th, 2002 02:49:45 PM
John Huston wanted desperately to make the leap from screenwriter to director, so the studio, in a supreme moment of sadism, gave him Hammett's book, knowing full well it had been made twice before and bombed both times. "Here. You think you can direct? Make a movie out of this turkey." Now, there was one rule in Hollywood when the studios controlled everything: Never turn anything down. Huston, who had some vacation time coming to him, plopped the book down on his secretary's desk and told her to make a first pass at a screenplay -- don't get inventive, just translate the book directly into screenplay format. He figured when he came back, rested, he could rewrite it into something filmable. But something strange happened. He came back, read the script his secretary had typed, and it was terrific! Imagine that, a script that was faithful to its source material that was good. Sure, he had to tone down a little of the language (not even a "God damn" in those days), and he had a cut a scene where Spade sleeps with O'Shaughnessy (it's only hinted at in the final film), but other than that, it's the original God damn book! (Side digression: It even slipped by the censors that a "gunsel" wasn't noir-speak for a gunman, but actually meant a sissy -- a homosexual.) The punch line? Huston won an Oscar for best screenplay.
Adaptations by Billy Talent	Apr 24th, 2002 03:52:01 PM
Well they always say that the worst books make the best movies. Personally I've never read a lot of sci-fi, fantasy, comics or genre bestsellers. I've always thought people like Clancy and Crichton write not very good books with obvious cinematic potential. Call me a snob but a novel about genetically engineered dinosaurs sounds like a complete waste of time to me. A movie about the same sounds like a lot of fun. However, be the source material a comic book or a trashy bestseller or even an authentic literary classic, a movie is a whole different animal. I want to see the best movie. If there are problems with the source material, I want the film makers to change them. I'm glad Kubrick's 'The Shining' is so different from King's novel, because the novel isn't very good. I'm glad Coppola and Puzo dropped most of the Johnny Fontane story for the film of 'The Godfather'. I'm glad the endings of 'Red Dragon' and 'Hannibal' were changed. They're better movies than they are books.
hmm... by thePlebeian	Apr 24th, 2002 04:06:46 PM
Ever notice that if a movie is an adaption of a book, Harry always points out that he hasn't read the book? What is it, boy? Refuse to read any books (except your own), just in case they are one day made into a movie? Hmm...
He better be da bomb in DD, yo!! by Terry_1978	Apr 24th, 2002 04:45:27 PM
THAT will be the defining moment when all fanboy hatred of Affleck may be laid to rest....IF he does that well.
"literary classics" and Clancy to film. by Caine	Apr 24th, 2002 05:06:39 PM
What exactly defines a 'literary classic' anyway? Some people may call it snobbery, others may say it is high culture. I always thought 'classic' translated to 'old.' Some older (more than 100 years) novels and short stories I liked, others I did not. A 'good' novel, like film and artwork, is really a declaration of personal preference, and is also dependant upon wht kinds of standards the individual applies to the work in question - be it film, T.V. Programming, Novels, etc. Different genres have different "rules" if you will for suspension of disbelief. *** I personally think that "Without Remorse" would make an excellent film, as it dealt with John Clark's character, both at home and overseas, during the final years of the Vietnamese conflict. It works very well as a stand-alone novel, and some of the sub-plots and minor characters could be easily removed, WITHOUT destroying the story. Gary Sinise would not be a good choice for John Clark circa 1969 - he's too old, and hes not physically big enough. Clark's character was, by all descriptions, a physically large and muscular man, who was in his mid to late 20's. Perhaps if Ben Affleck pulls this movie off, they will be able to actually make "Without Remorse..." But I doubt it.
Shade ... by hktelemacher	Apr 24th, 2002 06:19:09 PM
Patrick Swayze's character in Donnie Darko does NOT get away with the kiddie porn stuff, we just don't see him get busted. A lot of things in the movie are about getting away with it, but every harmful action in the film has a consequence. When Donnie goes back in time through the worm hole at the end there is a long sequence that covers all of the characters waking up. As if the rest of the movie was a dream, they each have a sort of intuitive knowledge as to what has happened, is happening or will happen. The teacher (I forget her name) who was Swayze's biggest supporter wakes up and is horrified, because now she has the knowledge that Swayze is a fraud, a pervert and a criminal. When Swayze wakes up he's shaking with fear because his subconcious recollection of the movie has him going to jail for what he's done and perhaps he'll have a moment of guilty clarity and turn himself in. If not, the knowledge is out there for someone to grasp but the means to righting all of the wrongs are more subtle in the "real world". Just like Frank gave Donnie clues and instructions on how to complete his mission, Donnie has laid the groundwork to purge all of the shit out of the town. This is pretty much said in both of the DVD commentaries and I've seen the movie five times now and it does make sense and it does work. The first time I saw Donnie Darko, I loved it but didn't understand it because the end, while not a twist, just mixes it up even further. The flick just gets better with repeat viewings and it was my favorite movie last year (Richard Kelly was robbed at the Independent Spirit Awards, I was pulling for him to get best first feature, but oh well) but I kind of like how it was so criminally overlooked because now it's going to become one of those cool cult things and nobody mainstream knows what the fuck you're talking about when you mention the best film of 2001.
P.S, Darko cinematography by hktelemacher	Apr 24th, 2002 06:26:08 PM
It had a sort of soft focus Spielberg/E.T quality to it. It wasn't flawlessly shot, but pretty damn good for a first time director working with a very tight budget.
Donnie Darko's Da Dope Dude by Boris Grushenko	Apr 24th, 2002 07:10:03 PM
Thanks for that Patrick Swayze explanation. I've only seen the film once, but now that you mention it, I remember the scenes you described perfectly, and your explanation makes perfect sense. I like the fact that Kelly didn't spell everything out in the film. I like feeling confused at the end of the movie, and forced to put it together. I love movies I have to see a second or third time, just to figure it all out. Besides Darko, only Mulholland Falls and Memento had that effect on me last year. Vanilla Sky would have, but I'd seen Open Your Eyes at least 5 times before Cameron Crowe even signed on to do the film. Long live Darko! Again, just wish I could have seen it in the theatre. As for the cinematography, you need to get a new television. It looked great to me, combining with the score and overall ambience to create an almost hypnotic mood.
add Donnie D by Boris Grushenko	Apr 24th, 2002 07:14:03 PM
New Times (L.A.) / Jean Oppenheimer: Like gathering storm clouds, Donnie Darko creates an atmosphere of eerie calm and mounting menace -- stands as one of the most exceptional movies of 2001.....................Enter tainment Weekly / Lisa Schwarzbaum: Kelly, the 26-year-old writer-director of this excitingly original indie vision, shares more artistically with Wes Anderson or Paul Thomas Anderson than he does with Spielberg or John Hughes, but the point is, he's out on his own here. He swings big -- with flair.....................LA Weekly / Joe Donnelly: It is funny, sad and beautiful. And it's right on time......................Vill age Voice / J. Hoberman: Certainly the most original and venturesome American indie I've seen this year.......................New York Post / Lou Lumenick: Most experienced filmmakers wouldn't even attempt a film that's so blackly funny, that so rapidly shifts genres and tone, and that layers late '80s cultural references so thickly, from "E.T." to Smurfs.......................A ustin Chronicle / Kimberley Jones: So much here is equally befuddling and beguiling; I caught myself leaning in toward the screen repeatedly, trying to somehow get closer to the gorgeous impenetrability of the story, of the boy.........................Ne w York Daily News / Elizabeth Weitzman: The flaws are more than balanced out by the risks the earnest Kelly encourages his excellent cast to take........................Ch icago Reader / Lisa Alspector: Kelly is a supple and courageous storyteller, boldly free-associating as he mixes parody and satire with earnest psychodrama and coming up with plot points no one could anticipate.................... ......Mr. Showbiz / Michael Atkinson: The nerviest, oddest, most outlandish and idiosyncratic American indie debut since "Buffalo 66," Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko defies description................... ........Salon.com / Andrew O'Hehir: A stunning technical accomplishment that virtually bursts with noise, ideas and references, but it's fundamentally a gracefully crafted movie that's about human beings and not images........................ ...Los Angeles Times / Jan Stuart: If you let it be what it is, Donnie Darko will knock you flat.
'Literary Classics' by Billy Talent	Apr 24th, 2002 07:50:11 PM
I don't know what defines a classic either, though it's not simply age. Personal taste is always the main arbiter. As a matter of taste, I don't read a lot of comics or genre fiction, but I do enjoy some of the movies that are made from them. In my opinion something like 'Jurassic Park' has more cinematic value than it does literary. My point is simply that a film succeeds or fails on its own terms irrespective of the source material. Some people might be more open to 'The Sum of All Fears' if it had a different title and didn't say 'Based on the Novel by Tom Clancy'. I don't really care, nor am I concerned with alterations in 'Spider-Man' or 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'Richard III'. As films they exist independent of their sources. They're adaptations. Which is, I suppose, pretty obvious.
"The existing Jack Ryan movies that have existed so far..." by CordyFan	Apr 24th, 2002 08:27:28 PM
Harry, do you proofread??
"MALTESE FALCON is the best Sam Spade movie" by patient37	Apr 24th, 2002 08:57:17 PM
I guess I can let this pass Harry, but that was stretching it, comparing another film's character to Spade. Next time just compare the two that are actually the same character, why dontcha? Keep up the mediocre work, boobala.
I saw this movie tonight--What the hell is Harry smoking?!!! by PR_GMR	Apr 24th, 2002 10:24:12 PM
I saw this movie tonight.. Just walked out of a preview screening in Baltimore, MD.(thanks so much PopeOfBalt) What the hell is Harry smoking?? Did we see the same movie?? The movie I saw was in one word MEDIOCRE!! I'm starved and must get a bite to eat.. but I'll post a proper review in a bit. I can't comprehend Harry's review. It's so unbelievably overhyped and OFF THE MARK!! "Phil Alden Robinson has crafted one of the absolute best spy thrillers ever made." Jeebus, that statement is so SO SO... SO NOT RIGHT! Now I understand many talkbackers accuse Harry of being on the payroll of the movie studios.. Something stinks rotten in the state of AICN!!
John Clark is based on the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by MGTHEDJ	Apr 24th, 2002 11:54:37 PM
Henry Shelton, the man who folllowed Colin Powell. Hell, he looks like John Clark as described in the books. And Robbie over the years took on more characteristics of Powell. When Clancy hit it big in the mid-1980's he became a member of D.C. society and started hanging out with Powell, Rice, and several other high powered people of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Clancy has stated in interviews that Powell is a friend. Now on the issue of that "Without Remorse" movie. When Clancy made the deal for "Sum of all Fears" one of his demands, it is alleged, was Noyce would never do another film based on his works. Thus no John Clark movie.
Still a bungled adaption, Ryan's wife isn't named that by TheMatarife	Apr 25th, 2002 12:41:54 AM
They didn't really include the novels idea for peace in isreal either, or the arab villains.
Here's my review of Sum Of All Fears by PR_GMR	Apr 25th, 2002 12:47:18 AM
Feel free to compare it to Harry's hyperbolic, overheated review: Tonight I attended a free preview screening of The Sum Of All Fears, the latest film adaptation from a Tom Clancy novel. I didn
bigpackagemax by Wino-Forever	Apr 25th, 2002 01:08:45 AM
I've been following your joke around and I hate to break it to you, but someone beat you that one ages ago. In a very early Hulk talkback. I'm sorry. It had to be said.
Right on Caine!!!!!! by 20th Century Fox	Apr 25th, 2002 01:47:02 AM
Caine I think you nailed the flaw in this review. Yes I read the shooting script and they totally screwed it up. The Changing of the terrorists to Neo-Nazi's and the elimination of Elizabeth Elliot (To appease utra-liberals no doubt) radical feminist charcter. ARE major changes that compromise the book. Yet were told to chuck our baggage and grin and bear what the viacommunists give us. Caine YOU ARE SOOOOO RIGHT. Yes just look at harrys rantings over the fact that Eletctra from daredevil must be a GREEK born actress to keep integrety. Yet most layman wouldnot have cared. If Rami made Spider Mans costume black you would have heard it from the Harry and the fanboys that things were being compromised. YET many younger fans recall the marvel make over of the character of the mid 80's. But the harry would have had a cow, and we cant have that. But hey if you are not versed in the lore you can make it as PC as you want....WHICH IS IT HARRY??????????????
Harry's right ... PR_GMR's wrong by TerryW	Apr 25th, 2002 01:57:59 AM
First, let me state the obvious: we're talking opinions here. I loved the film, PR_GRM didn't. Nothing I say will convince him to love the film. But I can't let some of his statements go by without comment. "Instead of middle eastern terrorists conspiring towards a nuclear attack, it
I haven't seen 'The Sum of All Fears', so I'm no by Billy Talent	Apr 25th, 2002 03:51:14 AM
But the montage of Michael becoming Godfather to Connie's baby while all of his enemies are being wiped out is from 'The Godfather I'.
I haven't seen 'The Sum of All Fears', so I'm no by Billy Talent	Apr 25th, 2002 03:51:28 AM
But the montage of Michael becoming Godfather to Connie's baby while all of his enemies are being wiped out is from 'The Godfather Part I'.
TerryW... want to make a bet? by PR_GMR	Apr 25th, 2002 10:43:18 AM
TerryW.. want to make a bet that this movie will fail? I'm game if you are. Sorry, but I simply can't agree with Harry's overblown review of this flick. And I must stick to my guns about the points I make. As far the Jack Ryan films go, I consider this the worst one.
I do bet it's a hit by TerryW	Apr 25th, 2002 10:58:16 AM
I respect your opinion that you didn't like it, but when I saw the film, the audience reaction was overwhelmingly positive. As was mine. I think it passes $100 million easily.
And I say HUGE HIT by Toro	Apr 25th, 2002 11:01:33 AM
I saw one of the earliest screenings last fall - there was some problems with things not being totally clear, but I still thought it was fantastic. I haven't been able to get some of those scenes out of my mind. And there were four of us that night who saw it and who all tell everyone we know you fucking gotta see this movie! It rocks and it's smart. This movie has HIT written allover it. No question in my mind.
At this point the outcome is up in the air - what will the marke by LiquidNitrate	Apr 25th, 2002 03:02:03 PM
My audience agreed with PR_GMR... I heard overwhelmingly negative comments from the other viewers that night - everybody comparing this with "Red October," "Clear & Present," and agreeing that "Sum" SUCKED donkey and was a total degrading insult, the Joel Schumacher of the Tom Clancy franchise (appropriate considering Akiva Goldsman's involvement with both that and this). We honestly felt that "Sum"'s supporting cast was awful, the script lame, the FX cheesy, the direction inept, the pacing tiresome. So far the posters and trailers seemed to be the movie's best strength - as if slick marketing will dry flies to shit. (Paramount and Disney often prove so)... But perhaps TerryW, Toro, Nick at Chud, and yes, even Harry, have a point. Maybe this movie will actually work for those audiences who hated "Clear and Present" (I've got friends who said it was an A-quality Chuck Norris flick). After all, the "Mission: Impossible" movies have polarized audiences, with fans preferring one and hating the other, and some viewers disliking both. Very few people like both M:I's equally, and so it seems to be the result with "Sum of All Fears" - it's finding some positive reaction from certain fanboy guys, along with vehemently negative, but not a whole lot of lukewarm shrugs in the middle. Again, come Memorial Day how will the general public respond? We'll find out in a month. PR_GMR and I will definitely NEVER sit/suffer through this ever again, and refuse to buy its DVD regardless of special features, but we will be happy with Special Editions of the original Jack Ryan trilogy... if Paramount's video team gets off their asses.
by hktelemacher	Apr 25th, 2002 05:57:58 PM

People Awaiting THE BOURNE IDENTITY? by mrbeaks	Apr 25th, 2002 06:31:50 PM
That's a laugh. Outside of the Ludlum demographic (Males aged 80 - 102), there isn't a soul in the known universe looking forward to this movie. While I liked Ludlum's book, they're going to have a hard time marketing this, and Damon fleeing the States to fill in for the departing cast members of THIS IS OUR YOUTH (this would be like Nathan Lane replacing, say, George Wendt in THE PRODUCERS six months into the run) on the West End, with such powerhouse names as Casey Affleck and Summer Phoenix, doesn't exactly bespeak a great deal of confidence in what could be, if done right, the star making vehicle he's been dodging over the last few years. Paramount's got a winner in SUM OF ALL FEARS and they know it, which is why they've been aggressively screening the film a month before its release and not embargoing reviews, much like Dreamworks did two years ago with GLADIATOR, which a number of would-be pundits in these talkbacks claimed would flop like KING DAVID. You guys were wrong then, and you're wrong now. Phil Alden Robinson has, by all accounts (and I've heard from lots of folks on this one outside of the webmasters), delivered, and this issue of whether the film works will be rendered moot at the end of May, when the film begins its inevitable march to $100 million. Right now, I get the faint whiff of rival marketing hacks struggling vainly to taint a certain winner, which always makes for such a fun, if pathetic, spectacle.
Affleck ain't not Bogart by unittk421ii	Apr 26th, 2002 04:55:20 PM
I was completely thrilled to read the review of Episode II put out by AICN, but having just read a similarly fantatic review of Sum of ALl Fears, I must say, my faith in the initial review has wavered some. Where I never had once in a million years ever thought I would put myself through another Ben Affleck movie period, I was even more skeptical given that the role he was playing was once played by competent Alec Baldwin and God-like Harrison Ford. This is percieved as an insult to the intelligent and moronic movie-goer alike. I must say though, I will now see the film. Harry's review of SUm of All fears isnpired hope in the film within me. A film I normally would consider back of the video store garbage. A low point for even Ben Affleck(who is really just a career of low points at this point) Honestly, Affleck strikes me as a guy who was just in the right plae at the right time a few times in a row. When he gave the golden globe to Ford I wanted to puke. Harrison Ford. The father of the modern action star, being i the same space as that- that- that blemish on Ford's action star legacy- GOD! Personal bias aside though, I too love the Maltese Falcon, and for much the same reasons as Harry Knowles aptly points out. It is close to perfection in both pacing, editing, and moreover dialogue. It is an example of Ergei Eisenstien's genus put to work. Nothing out of the past twenty, nothing out of the past fifty years has compared to it's efficiency and it's care with cinematic time and space- but enough film critic hogwash- it's a damn cool movie and it's a fun adventure. These are two things that could make any Ben Affleck effort worth our while. So I say let's put aside our completely justified bias against Affleck and Co. Let's assume that this Godfather two reference may simply mean that Like Gofather two, Sum of ALl fears takes advantage of it's placement chronologically in a series and shows us something that breaks open a new view of the people we've been watching(I'm thinking last scene in Godfather II where we see the family together before the shit started that set everything down the pipes for heroic little Mike). But maybe Mr. knowles has something else in mind. I'd perfer to have faith in his reference instead of assume he's suggesting SUm of All fears is comparable to these example of Cinematic excellence. Furthermore, if we put faith in him about Episode II, then we must also put faith in him about Sum of ALl fears. And personally, at this point I need to put faith in SUm of all fears.
Affleck ain't not Bogart by unittk421ii	Apr 26th, 2002 04:55:38 PM
I was completely thrilled to read the review of Episode II put out by AICN, but having just read a similarly fantatic review of Sum of ALl Fears, I must say, my faith in the initial review has wavered some. Where I never had once in a million years ever thought I would put myself through another Ben Affleck movie period, I was even more skeptical given that the role he was playing was once played by competent Alec Baldwin and God-like Harrison Ford. This is percieved as an insult to the intelligent and moronic movie-goer alike. I must say though, I will now see the film. Harry's review of SUm of All fears isnpired hope in the film within me. A film I normally would consider back of the video store garbage. A low point for even Ben Affleck(who is really just a career of low points at this point) Honestly, Affleck strikes me as a guy who was just in the right plae at the right time a few times in a row. When he gave the golden globe to Ford I wanted to puke. Harrison Ford. The father of the modern action star, being i the same space as that- that- that blemish on Ford's action star legacy- GOD! Personal bias aside though, I too love the Maltese Falcon, and for much the same reasons as Harry Knowles aptly points out. It is close to perfection in both pacing, editing, and moreover dialogue. It is an example of Ergei Eisenstien's genus put to work. Nothing out of the past twenty, nothing out of the past fifty years has compared to it's efficiency and it's care with cinematic time and space- but enough film critic hogwash- it's a damn cool movie and it's a fun adventure. These are two things that could make any Ben Affleck effort worth our while. So I say let's put aside our completely justified bias against Affleck and Co. Let's assume that this Godfather two reference may simply mean that Like Gofather two, Sum of ALl fears takes advantage of it's placement chronologically in a series and shows us something that breaks open a new view of the people we've been watching(I'm thinking last scene in Godfather II where we see the family together before the shit started that set everything down the pipes for heroic little Mike). But maybe Mr. knowles has something else in mind. I'd perfer to have faith in his reference instead of assume he's suggesting SUm of All fears is comparable to these example of Cinematic excellence. Furthermore, if we put faith in him about Episode II, then we must also put faith in him about Sum of ALl fears. And personally, at this point I need to put faith in SUm of all fears.
Affleck and Jack Ryan and Bourne Identity by Jack Burton	Apr 26th, 2002 06:31:37 PM
I like Affleck. I think he's funny and a good actor. His monologue in Dogma in the garage with Matt Damon is great. Changing Lanes was well done and well acted. Plus his commentary on the Armageddon DVD is hysterical. As for the Jack Ryan movies, Clear and Present Danger was great. The ending scene with the blue screen shot was sore spot but overall I loved it. as for Sum of All Fears, the trailer looks kick ass and Affleck seems to handle the Ryan character well. I think Bourne Identity looks pretty cool too. Hell, it's summer people, lighten up.
Copeeman by Mr Glass	Apr 26th, 2002 06:35:00 PM
Remember that great comedy undeclared? remember that ben stiller episode? remember when the other dude from tenacious d said he'd like to get it on with lisa ling, lucy liu and the chick from crouching tiger hidden dragon and asked what was her name? to which his friend replied I think her name is ang lee. So he says yeah, Ang Lee is hot!!! Man, I miss undeclared. Fuck you Fox!
ok we`re GEEKS and everyone has his own look at the movie becaus by drjones	May 5th, 2002 08:38:21 AM
peace! relax!
Godfather 1 not 2 by moe_syzlak	May 22nd, 2002 11:24:23 PM
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the post climax that cuts back and forth between the govt. scenes and the CIA op scenes. That would be Godfather 1 not 2. I thought of this as I was watching the film and hadn't read your review. Very cool. Very similar scene in the finale of West Wing tonight too. The one real gripe I had with this film was the same gripe I had with Clear and Present Danger (although I had a lot of other problems with that film). There is an unnecessary fist fight. The Jack Ryan character is intriguing to me b/c he is a CIA/"action hero" whose actions are with his mind. He figures things out that other people miss. Like the fact that Sean Connery wanted to defect in THFRO, for example. There is no need for him to PHYSICALLY take on the bad guys. In fact, I find it distracting and feel the filmmakers feel that moviegoers need SOME action from their star in a movie of this sort.
Too bad Earnest died... by lalblow	May 29th, 2002 05:17:53 PM
He would have made for a more believable Jack Ryan.
by sessluce	May 30th, 2002 02:22:29 AM
Saw a preview screening in Seattle last night. I'm no big fan of Affleck; like George Clooney before him, he has a number of tics that get in the way of appreciating his 'acting.' George's tic took the form of a gurgling laugh and maniacal head-bobbing like one of those dashboard hula dolls. Ben, on the other hand, had that smart-ass, roofy-slipping, frat-boy asshole smirk all over his puss. So you coulda knocked me over with the proverbial feather when I saw SOAF and saw that the frat-boy schtick had been dispensed with, replaced by a more thoughtful, tentative-but-smart, learning the ropes, dead-on characterization. Plus, even Morgan Freeman can't act him off the screen. The two best things I can say are that comparisons with previous Jacks are all favorable--credit where it's due, he more than holds his own. Best of all, not only do you completely believe in him and go with the flow, but after a while you forget about animal crackers, bad southern accents, watching him pretending to want to knock boots with Gwynnie, the ill-fated Santa-suit episode, and the Bert & Ernie-style homoerotic chemistry with Matt, and you start to think 'Chasing Amy' was no fluke and he can act after all. Whoda thunk?
Misc. by WayOutWest	May 31st, 2002 09:33:56 PM
I think you all forgot (or didn't see) Affleck in 'Boiler Room'. He can act. His speech to the new recruits (chapter 5 on the DVD) is amazing. I do agree with Caine. The sanitizing of the script to appease those Politically Correct, limo liberals who Harry now dines with was annoying. But it's a solid summer thriller. Almost felt bad seeing it for the matinee price. Almost.
Elena Rhyzkov by operapete	Jun 2nd, 2002 02:06:23 AM
Harry, I hope you read this, cause I know you got this... Hat's off to the genius of Phil Alden Robinson (and the flexibility of Tom Clancy) for the inside joke at the beginning of Sum of All Fears: Ryan and the other wonks are sitting around, anlyzing the Russian president's return (and how fat he is) when they start arguing about the guy standing next to Elena Rhyzkov. They argue back and forth, mentioning Elena's name several times. Finally, Ryan's pregnant supervisor goes into her office and asks her subordinates to find out "who is sleeping with Elena Rhyzkov." Brilliant because in Robinson's excellent film, SNEAKERS, Ms. Garlington plays -- you guessed it -- Elena Rhyzkov. As for a review: the film wasn't that bad! Most films don't live up to the books they were adapted from because (and this is important) THEY CAN'T CAST THE PRESON THAT YOU IMAGINED! It's just not possible because there are several MILLION imaginations at work reading a book. Get over yourself and just enjoy a couple of hours at the theatre. That's what it's there for.
The GODFATHER moment. . . . . . by gurglesnap	Jun 2nd, 2002 04:02:19 AM
Okay, no one is reading these talkbacks at this point, but for the record: The Godfather moment that Harry mentioned and that everyone is arguing about is in ALL THREE GODFATHER FILMS. It's a staple of the series. It's in Godfather I as Connie's child is being baptized (think of the fates of Moe Green and the heads of the five families. . .), it's in Godfather II (Vincent Gazo's character gets it, as does Roth, and some others that I'm forgetting. . .) and in Godfather III, which was such a misfire that I can't even remember who the new characters were, let alone why they were killed montage-style. SO THERE. It's in all three Godfather films. Everyone is correct. On another note: Sum of all Fears was pretty decent for the first two thirds. I think the whole thing falls apart in the third act. Still worth seeing though.
Lame by notarydpo	Jun 2nd, 2002 03:59:45 PM
Caine is dead on with his review. I don't claim to hold the books in the highest regard, but they certainly don't deserve this treatment. The story has been dumbed down beyond necessity. Further Ryan adaptations--at least with any regard to chronology--are just about impossible now, though I doubt that will prevent them. I really wanted to like this, but just couldn't. Feels silly when it should feel horrific. Feels dated when it should feel topical. And with the next big release, it will be instantly forgotten.
Re: Elena Rhyzkov by Metatron	Jun 5th, 2002 01:22:01 PM
Yes, I caught that, too. Funny thing I didn't recall until later that Phil Alden Robinson directed Sneakers (Big DUH on my part... it's one of my favorite spy flicks... I shoulda known!). I loved the film... mega-suspense. All the while, my wife and I were very conscious of the situation in India right now... which in many ways parallels the plot of this film.
Better than Star Wars by mhmcclanahan	Jun 5th, 2002 03:24:08 PM
I went to Star Wars with few preconceived ideas and enjoyed it for the entertainment that it is. However, two days later I saw Sum Of All Fears (at Cinemark Tinsleton Round Rock)as a favor to my husband (his turn to pick the movie...)and REALLY enjoyed it! More entertaining than I had expected. I didn't fall asleep. I even teared up at the bomb scene. I had the same experience with Hunt For Red October. There is something very patriotic that stirs within me when I see this kind of movie. I hope we have many like Clark in the military. He is a bad SOB and makes up for the wimpy, whiny scenes. And that scene ending with the classical music! It is a great effect on your brain. Calming yet disturbing. As in all Tom Clancy movies, the lead character goes on a little too long (wimpy and whiny) making his point to those in power. But the movie was well worth the money spent and I felt euphoric when I left the theater!
for those who don't like the book being changed by bib fortuna	Jun 7th, 2002 03:35:06 AM
Well I saw the movie, haven't read the book. Someone I know who did read it said things like the bomb was in Denver at a football game, not Baltimore. Well, whatever. It was a good movie anyway, and if Tom Clancy ok'd changing the story I don't see how anyone can complain about it. It's his story, isn't it?
gay-fleck by LEDSKEE	Jun 7th, 2002 09:43:10 AM
Fuck Ben Affleck, how dare he occupy the same screen as Morgan Freeman. The nerve. I believe he sold his soul to satan in return for fame. There's no other explanation for this no-talent ass-freak. As for this pathetic film, let me get this straight: 1)there's a NUCLEAR explosion in Baltimore 2) ass-freak walks away from a chopper crash 3)ass-freak gallavants all over smoldering, radioactive Baltimore 4) right.
The SUCK of My Fears by Aeon_Flux	Jun 11th, 2002 03:38:58 AM
Wow, Harry...I have loved and agreed nearly word-for-word with every review you've ever done but with this review I now realize that you to can be a complete idiot and a mere mortal just like all the rest of us. Well, at least you're on the same level with the rest of us.... Anyhow, to give you some background: I'm an avid Clancy fan, I don't hate nor adore Ben Affleck, and I read only your review and saw some trailers before going to see this film. My verdict? This movie really lived up to it's name: The Sum of All Fears. If you were worried that Clancy has lost his edge, that the Jack Ryan series was indeed dead, if you thought the Ryan character could not live through (yet another) actor change, if you worried that the time-line probs would be an issue, if you thought the PC script changes from muslim to neo-nazi terrorists would be apparent, if you thought Ben Affleck might not live up to the role of Jack Ryan...then let me save you $8.00 by telling you that this movie is the Sum of ALL your fears. This movie was a disappointment. I was so disappointed, in fact, that I had to immediately sneak in to see Bad Company (which turned out to be far more entertaining) to feel like I hadn't been ripped off of my 8 bucks. I think only those people that seem nearly obsessed with post-9.11 imagry (seeing it reflected in EVERYTHING and looking for it everywhere) will enjoy this film. Any movies lately about terrorists and/or bombs in the US just seems to turn a lot of people into mindless patriots, heaping praise on loads of shit all under the guise of "entertainment". How many "The Sum of All Fears" and "Black Hawk Down" 's am I going to have to endure before a "Hunt for Red October," a "Das Boot," or an "Apocalypse Now" comes out again?
Not quite by Jubieloo	Jun 14th, 2002 07:38:49 PM
i wouldnt say the sum of all fears is 'perfect' or even fantastic, but i thought it was very good, especially for its genre...i really enjoyed it and i didnt go into it expecting to love it--i was pleasantly suprised, as i think a lot of people are going to be with this flick. just go and have fun and form your own opinion--it doesnt seem like the type of movie you can judge without actually seeing it.
Ciaran Hinds by muffaletta	Jun 17th, 2002 02:12:51 PM
The ONLY reason I saw this stupid movie was for Ciaran Hinds and I have to thank god that at least that wasn't disappointing. The fact that he did most of his scenes in Russian was awesome. I left the theatre with a new respect for Liev Schrieber as well.
Confused by JacksonsBane	Aug 24th, 2002 03:31:40 PM
I haven't read the book, but am I missing something or is there one giant glaring hole in this film's plot: Neo-nazis want the USA and Russia to engage in nuclear attacks against each other - why? Did they think Europe would somehow escape the inevitable nuclear winter in which all life on the planet would be destroyed? I don't buy it.

Talkbacks

SUM OF ALL FEARS review

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks