Home :: DVD :: Action & Adventure :: Espionage  

Animal Action
Blackmail, Murder & Mayhem
Blaxploitation
Classics
Comic Action
Crime
Cult Classics
Disaster Films
Espionage

Futuristic
General
Hong Kong Action
Jungle Action
Kids & Teens
Martial Arts
Military & War
Romantic Adventure
Science Fiction
Sea Adventure
Series & Sequels
Superheroes
Swashbucklers
Television
Thrillers
The Sum of All Fears

The Sum of All Fears

List Price: $14.99
Your Price: $13.49
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 30 >>

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: A good movie but it needed someone better than Ben Affleck
Review: This was a good movie. I liked the plot. But Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan? Come one. This needed a better actor. I'm not a big Ben Affleck fan because he isn't a good actor. It needed like a Harrison Ford like guy. Ben Affleck couldn't fit in his shoes!

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Sum of bad acting
Review: Sum of all fears is a movie right from the beginning I knew was going to be a total let down and a waste to see. The result: I was right. It's not a bad a story, Clancy does an admirable job with his book, but the movie is not like his book, it's entirely different only copying the main premise of having a nuke brought to the US.

OK, it's believable that a nuke gets recovered and sold around to certain violent factions. I'm not so sure if it makes sense that a nuke from an Israeli war is likely to be found because none were planned to be used. That wasn't a war that would've called for a nuke, considering how Israel kicked Egypt's and Syria's ass. So I think it would've been more believable if the nuke came from the old Soviet Union which has "misplaced" about a third to half of their nukes.

Let's talk about the bad guys. The bad guys are pointless. You don't know who they are, they have no real development, they are let downs in villains. And naturally they are Nazis. Of all the most over-used form of organized villainy it's Nazis. In the 1930's it makes sense, but late 20th century? Um, no. Why not have a different organization? Be original if you're not going to follow Clancy's book which used Islamic extremists.

Now the acting. My word, how the heck is Affleck even an actor? I haven't seen such a poor job of acting since Keanu Reeves in Devil's Advocate. This guys sucks eggs, he has no likeable personality, no charisma, no anything. Harrison Ford had a subtle, but radiant personna that made him stand out, Affleck just has his youth and a million screaming fans. I don't see how this guy was casted as Ryan but it was a huge error because he plays a poor one. Affleck comes across as a boy still in high school who's working lawn mower jobs to pay for his first car. He hardly comes across as a "man" doing a "man's job." Go back to starring in films like Gigli or whatever the hell it's called, Ben, because you can't act. For the bucks this guy gets, I could do better. He doesn't seem comfortable in a role where the good guy must have some balls and act on principle, such as Ford did so wonderfully when he played Ryan. I'm trying to think who's a worse Ryan: Affleck or Baldwin. Both sucked because neither of them have the captivating talents that Ford does when the camera is on him. Affleck is a bomb, it's not a wonder why his films go down the drain.

Yikes, and where's Anne Archer when you need her? This young chick playing her character is awful. Katherine Ryan is a character who is serious minded, yet sarcastic and playful, and very encouraging with Jack. This girl has none of that. It sounds to me that this was another mis-cast of character and they put some babe to play a role that demanded a "woman" to play a "woman's role" not some little girl still in her teenybopper stages as she runs around a hospital making stupid quips.

The casting and acting of this film is horrindous, that costed two stars. The third star it lost was plot and realism. I had a hard time believing that the events that unfolded would be possible. The idea of Russian scientists, with no particular motive, helping Nazis is insane. The idea that the President of the USA would threaten to nuke Russia just because of a hunch is stupid. The reality of this film is non-existant. All this film is, unfortunately, is poor choiced hype. Directors wanted to make a disaster movie, post 9/11, so they borrowed Clancy's idea. They gave it hype. They starred a heart throb Ben Affleck. All this movie is is sensationalism. That's all and it doesn't live up to it as most movies don't.

I do not recommend this film, I've seen better and it could've been better. If you want good Clancy films see Clear and Present Danger or Patriot Games, there characters have some personality and development. With this film, there is no development, just quips and hype. It's the sum of bad sensationalism.

Grade: D+

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Does Not Live Up To The Novel......
Review: The Sum Of All Fears falls short in my cateory. The movie basically follows around a missing Israeli nuclear bomb, and the bomb is brought by a neo-nazi who plans to use it against the Americans. Now Jack Ryan (played by Ben Affleck) is a young CIA analyst who is still learning the ropes in the spy world, he has a girlfriend; Cathy Muller; a doctor for John Hopkins in Baltimore. As Jack learns his way around the CIA, he gets the information that a bomb is planning to come to America, for what Jack does not know until it is too late. The bomb is used at the Super Bowl, and a fake colonel in the Russian Navy orders Russian MiG's to fire on a American ship, and now the President thinks that the Russian's set the bomb off, and the President wants to wipe out Russia for so-calling killing thousand of lives in that game. So now Jack Ryan comes into the picture, and tells the President that the Russians didnt do it; it was a neo-nazi who set off the bomb. So Jack saves the day, and the neo-nazi is taken care of thanks to a car bomb, and the end.

So why did I give it 2 stars? In the novel, the enemy was not a neo-nazi, it was Palentinan terrorist who get a hold of a bomb that was used during the six-day war which it failed to explode. Also Jack Ryan was much more older than Ben Affleck, married, and two kids. Also Jack Ryan in the book was DDI at the CIA, he was not an analyist in the book. I was so disappointed with this movie, they should of gotten someone else to play Jack Ryan instead of Ben Affleck.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Why is this even a movie
Review: It's as if the writers and directors had a good idea, started to write it down, fell asleep, then woke up and added ending credits.
The best part of this DVD is the commentary by Dir. Robinson and writer Tom Clancy. From the opening line:
"Hi, I'm Phil Alden Robinson, the director of The Sum of All Fears"
"Hi, I''m Tom Clancy, I wrote the book that Phil ignored"
I was hooked. Clancy spends the entire movie pointing out flaws, perhaps as revenge for changing his plot so badly. Other than Clancy's commentary, this movies was horrible. If they couldn't get Ford to play Ryan, couldn't they have at least gotten someone close to his age to make the movie closer to the book. There's a whole John Clark subplot in the book that would have made this movie 500 times better.
This really only deserves one star, but I gave it three because of clancy's commentary

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: SUM ADDS UP TO GOOD ENTERTAINMENT
Review: Not one of Ben Affleck's fans, I found his performance in this film one of the best I've seen him in; while some may have found him flat, I found his understated performance a perfect counterbalance for the hyperantics of James Cromwell and his assorted staff members; not saying they were bad, just that they had enough vinegar in them to carry the "oomph" factor. Affleck's reactions seemed genuine and controlled, and in this age of action heroes overacting, it was refreshing. Morgan Freeman is very good in this one, as well, with excellent support from Ciarin Hinds as the Russian president; Liev Schrieber as the cool headed American assassin; Alan Bates as the cold hearted perpetrator; and Bridget Moynahan as Ryan's soon to be wife.
The explosion in Baltimore is a shocker and spellbinding!
I liked this film a lot.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The film is good but...
Review: it's about as different from the book as a film can get. Did the screenwriter even READ the book? I think not; there is very little they share other than the name and a bomb.
Despite that, I liked Affleck as a younger Ryan and I liked the story of the film. Comparing the two, however, is like comparing oranges and umbrellas.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Latest Jack Ryan movie from Tom Clancy
Review: This is the latest one of Tom Clancy's collection. I have always enjoyed his movies. This was one of the Tom Clancy books that I really enjoyed but the movie did not do it the book justice. It was a little more Hollywood then it needed to be. They should have worked off the past, it would have been much better. Still it is not all that bad, I have seen much worse.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Good action- supporting stars stronger than lead
Review: Liev Schrieber as John Clark- great
Morgan Freeman as DCI William Cabot great
James Cromwell as President good
Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan- FLAT as usual

This is one of Ben's better roles- he is not supposed to be funny which is impossible for him at the best of times but his wooden performance drags down this action thriller.

Liev Schrieber is more interesing in his few scenes than Affleck in the whole thing! Check out Liev in USA Networks mini-series TRAFFIC for an outstanding action/intrigue story with great acting/storyline and imaginative thrills that are so real they keep you wanting more.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: A B-flick masquerading as an A-flick.
Review: For me, there is really just one problem with this film. Even if a film is illogical, I am still able to suspend judgement and enjoy a film for what it's worth. The problem with this film is Affleck who is just horrible in the role of Jack Ryan. This guy (the character that is) has a PhD?! Get serious! In my opinion Liev Schreiber (John Clark in the film) should have been cast as Ryan. He has great physical and mental presence and is by-far a better actor than the wimpy Affleck.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Good movie - bad, bad, bad choice of actor!
Review: Like all Tom Clancy stories, this oe is a bit far-fetched! What the hell, I love Tom Clancy! There's nothing wrong with a bit of healthy escapism now and again, and this movie woud have provided apart from one thing - Ben Afflicted!!! What a poor choice as a replacement for Harrison! Ben cannot act at the best of times, but in a undemanding role such as playing Ryan, he is at his very worst!

I don't care for the lack of temporal continuity that "The Sum Of All Fears" now gives to the other titles in the series. I mean, if "Sum" takes place in the present, and Ryan is not married and has no kids, then how does he maage to have a family in the other three movies? Whose "clever" idea was it to try and fob that off on the audience? It's not like noone would realise, is it?

Final complaint - Ukranian soldiers of a certain age would easly be able to understand Russian, so when they are told to take off their boots, they would have known exactly what was being asked of them, and would not need it saying in Ukranian! Someone shuld have researched that one a little more. Oh, and yes, Afflek's Russian accent is appaling! Maybe it was his pronunciation the Ukranians were having trouble with!

Choose another Ryan - anyone will do (apart from Owen Wilson - Afflek's rival for the worst actor ever award!).


<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 30 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates