The Sum of All Fears [Blu-ray] Reviews

• The sum of all political correctness

  
  By A2AX102C9F65WA on 2002-06-08
  Ah yes, Tom Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears finally makes its way to the big screen. And what a convoluted piece of garbage. The film plays out like a cheap 70's disaster flick with a healthy dose of Cold War paranoia. In the shadow of 9/11, the films marketing couldn't have been handed a better gift. Had this film been released before 9/11, it wouldn't have made half the money. The problems are vast: Ben Affleck thinks he's still in Pearl Harbor, the movie jumps around from place to place in emulation of a James Bond thriller, but without any sense of direction. Jack (Affleck) Ryan is always behind the ball, and his general inability to do anything constructive really makes for a pathetic viewing experience over two and a half hours. A nuclear blast forgets that it's supposed to render all surrounding technology dead, Morgan Freeman isn't the CIA boss -- he's Morgan Freeman, Neo-Nazis want to establish the Fourth Reich among nuclear fallout.

  Indeed, it is this last part that kills the films credibilty. And not just because the film makers are cowards. In the novel, the terrorists were Islamic Fundamentalists (you know, the ones responsible for 9/11), but in a world suffering from the strangle-hold of political correctness, they were changed to Neo-Nazis! HA! HA! HA! The fact of the matter is, the threat of nuclear terrorism is an Islamic one.......and for a good reason: what better way to get into Heaven than by killing us all? But hey, let's not lose that "valuable" Arab market! Some have said that the film requires the suspension of disbelief. But this is a film that revolves around political intrigue and conspiracies. Not a subject you're supposed to turn your brain off for. But after it's made clear that a wealthy and intelligent fascist wants to lord over a dead world, Sum Of All Fears has more in common with Star Wars than any reality based story. The Nazis in this film have an Austrian ex-parliamentarian at the helm, unlimited funds, worldwide collaboration, a couple of Nordic specimens making deals and executing former partners, and one garden-variety American racist dolt. Truly laughable. In the shadow of Islamic terrorism, The Sum Of All Fears is a whitewashed, predictable, cowardly film.
  
  

• Sum Of The Parts Is Zero

  
  By A37F1G84K35FCZ on 2002-06-03
  If you have seen any of the previous three adaptations of Tom Clancy's work you will find this latest installment to be the most inept. If you have read the book this film is, "based on", the only common ground between the book and the movie is the title. Tom Clancy stated in an interview that he "had nothing to do with the film, he just signed the checks". To me this means that he has no pride of authorship in his work, for this film presumes the audience to be fools whether they have read the book or not. Whoever wrote the storyline for the film may have read the book jacket, but only maybe.

  Asking the audience to accept a new Jack Ryan that is about half the age of his predecessor is fine, to then leave the same actor in place as president from the last film boggles the imagination. The weapon that is used, the people who develop it, and the method and place of delivery have nothing to do with the book.

  Among the more absurd events (a very partial list):
  When there is an atomic explosion there is an event called EMP, or Electro Magnetic Pulse. This instantly shuts down everything from a pacemaker imbedded in someone's chest, all vehicles, radios, palm pilots, aircraft, cell phones, and anything else that requires electrical power. Not in this film. Every gadget works beautifully even as the mushroom clouds rises into the air.
  Ryan is in a helicopter that is directly in the path of the shockwave of the weapon. Not only would this be impossible to survive, but our hero emerges with barely a scratch.
  The effect of the bomb is minimal but they never explain why this is the case, a major issue dealt with in the book. There is no discussion at all as to the damage an event like this would cause.
  An aircraft carrier not only does not travel by itself, it has massive amounts of protection and nothing is allowed to come anywhere near it without being challenged. State of the art 1970's USSR technology manages to nearly destroy a carrier after sneaking up by being invisible to radar.
  Then things get really ridiculous. Our navy cannot detect antiques, but the Russian President orders that US B2 Stealth Bombers be shot down.
  The US Government is portrayed as being a group of mindless bickering idiots, and what was a very clever ending in the book was carefully rewritten into a farce.
  Once the bomb is detonated the cinematography is ridiculous. Everything becomes horribly overexposed as though the film itself was the victim of foul play. The pain is extended as we are forced to watch this mess in slow motion.

  This is hands down the worst film I have seen this year. Number one this weekend it will go away quickly as people who wasted their time in the theater warn others.
  
  

• Fun and suspenseful

  
  By A2W73HCT8B5H8T on 2002-04-26
  I'm a hard-core Tom Clancy fan and was surprised to see how much this latest film adaptation wandered from the book, but it was still very entertaining. The latest incarnation of Jack Ryan is very young and inexperienced. The film seems to pretend the other Jack Ryan adventures haven't happened. Jack is new with the CIA and doesn't know the ropes the way he does in the book. He isn't even married yet. Morgan Freeman is wonderful as his boss (no surprise there) and the relationship between them is the best part of the film.

  I'm no expert, but there seemed to be some technical flaws which required that the viewer suspend their skepticism. (Would cell phones continue to work when your local area has been hit by a nuke?) Still a worthy addition to the series. Clancy's readers will have to be especially open-minded though.
  
  

• Good, but familiar....

  
  By A10WCSGF78M2KE on 2002-05-31
  Jack Ryan isn't getting older. And he isn't getting better. He's getting younger and he's turned into Ben Affleck, who is probably as good as Alec Baldwin (Ryan No. 1) but can't hope to match the crusty cool of Harrison Ford (Ryan No. 2).

  The latest Ryan movie, "The Sum of All Fears," is based on Tom Clancy's sixth novel, written in 1991. The chronology may strike the casual observer as a bit skewed. Apparently, "Sum" is a kind of prequel that takes Ryan back to his days as a feckless CIA rookie. It shows him merely dating Cathy (Bridget Moynahan), who will become his future wife (Anne Archer in the Ford films).Yet, this movie is taking place in the present and that would mean...Oh, never mind. Let's all do the Time Warp again and let it go.

  Anyway, Ryan is a greenhorn analyst whose particular expertise - he wrote a paper on a Russian official named Alexander Nemerov(Ciaran Hinds) - is now in great demand because Nemerov has just become the new president of Russia. Recruited by CIA director William Cabot (Morgan Freeman), Ryan quickly finds himself behind some very powerful closed doors, talking strategy with President Fowler (a very credible James Cromwell) and his top aides (Philip Baker Hall, Ron Rifkin and Bruce McGill).

  Meanwhile, a neo-Nazi (Alan Bates) has acquired a nuclear bomb, which he plans to use to start a war between Russia and the U.S. The idea is first to detonate the bomb at the Super Bowl in Baltimore, which the President is attending, and then rachet up the tension until the U.S. is convinced Nemerov is on the attack, and the two countries blow each other into oblivion.

  The bomb goes off - a harrowing sequence depicting a supposed low-level "dirty bomb" done in desaturated colors that shows us a very bleak Baltimore - isn't what the movie is about; it's about the aftermath. The confusion (particularly at the highest levels of government), the terror and, especially, the compassion as everyone tries to take care of everyone else.

  Which, of course, echoes the confusion, terror and compassion that really happened on Sept. 11. That shocking moment in history is inevitably intertwined with any movie offering this kind of scenario. It may be too soon for some to watch.

  It may be just right for others. The nine months distance does help. Our collective horrified memory - and remember, this movie was finished befire 9/11 - gives some considerable emotional heft to what would otherwise be another routinely professonal Clancy thriller. This time last year, the idea of a a nuclear explosion in Baltimore would strike the average viewer as unlikely, as far-fetched as a killer meteor. Now such an event has a chilling possibility. Something very close to it has already happened and seeing it imagined gives the picture a resonance it could never have summoned on its own.

  "The Sum of All Fears" is more of an ensemble piece than earlier Ryan adventures. Freeman continues to be a magic ingredient for any movie - like adding butter and sugar to most recipes. Cromwell brings dignity and humanity to a familiar part. After the explosion, he's not only enraged that someone attacked America but that "they tried to kill me." Liev Schreiber shows up as an expert field operative (originally played by Willem Dafoe). Typically a cerebral actor, he's surprisingly convincing in an action role.

  As for Affleck, he really isn't bad. His comic exchanges with Freeman are delightful and he can carry off the square-jawed-hero bit when called upon. But as movies like the recent "Changing Lanes" showed, he has a deft semi-comic touch. He should be playing some of the roles Hugh Grant turns down. The director, Phil Alden Robinson ("Field of Dreams"), isn't a conventional action director, but he handles the end-of-the-world stuff well. Plus, he brings a much-needed human dimension to the characters.

  Early Summer 2002 is shaping up to be all about comic-book heroes and George Lucas fantasies. That makes a good ol' Hollywood action flick even more welcome. "The Sum of All Fears" may not be super-smart, but it's rock-solid. And a fine way to spend a few hours out of the summer heat.
  
  

• **** A PLEASANT SURPRISE ****

  
  By A1YHKSTVSYEYTU on 2002-10-29
  The Sum of All Fears is the fourth film and in my opinion best film so far based on Tom Clancy's spy thrillers featuring the ever-reluctant hero Jack Ryan, now played by (a much more age appropriate) Ben Affleck.

  The plot of this movie revolves around a neo-fascist group, led by a nasty Alan Bates, trying to provoke a nuclear war between Russia and America by exploding a nuclear device on American soil (Baltimore, to be precise). It stars Ben Affleck as a younger Ryan, pre-marriage and pre Hunt For Red October, being taken under the wing of fatherly CIA director Morgan Freeman. I know there have been some very mixed reviews for this movie but much to my pleasant surprise I really enjoyed this movie and found it to be totally gripping and an excellent edge of the seat thriller.

  The Sum of all Fears is directed by Phil Alden Robinson, who previously directed the wonderful Field of Dreams, and he brings a lot more depth, subtlety and humour to both the characters and the plot development than Phillip Noyce previously managed in either of the last two Ryan movies (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger), not to mention the other clunkers on Noyce's résumé, including The Saint, Sliver and The Bone Collector (excellent novel, terrible adaptation). In fact it's a wonder this franchise has survived Phillip Noyce and that Noyce still has a career (although apparently his latest movie Rabbit Proof fence is actually very good).

  As for the cast, I feel that Affleck is a perfect choice and that he has at last found a decent role in a decent movie. Perhaps his first decent role since Good Will Hunting, which he co-wrote with Matt Damon, and certainly much much better than the dreadful Titanic-alike Pearl Harbour. Morgan Freeman is of course reliably excellent as always and has some of the best lines in the whole movie as CIA boss Bill Cabot but there are also other excellent supporting performances from the likes of Liev Schrieber as a covert CIA operative, James Cromwell (as a belligerent U.S. President), Ciarán Hinds as Russian President Nemerov and Alan Bates as the chief villain. However I can't say I was totally convinced with Bridget Moynahan as Ryan's girlfriend, Dr Cathy Mueller. Although one thing's for sure, she is very pleasant to look at and there were some excellent shared scenes between her and Affleck. I just didn't find her very convincing in her white coat playing a surgeon.

  In summary, I cannot think of a mainstream Hollywood thriller that I've enjoyed so much in a long time and many of the people I know that have also seen this film were equally as thrilled. I can honestly say that it was a pleasant surprise to enjoy this so much and that this is definitely one of the best films I've seen all year. Highly recommended! Four and a half stars.
  
  

• I can't believe that Clancy. . .
  By A3MSB482DIB9SL on 2002-11-27
  . . .actually approved of what was done to his outstanding book. The changing of the "bad guys" from Islamic extremists to Neo-Nazis was unbelievable, and detracted from the message of the story to such a degree as to make the film, in the mind of this reviewer, not worth much at all.

  Call me a purist, but I really dislike this sort of revisionism.

  Read the book; give the movie a miss.
  
  

• Film Promotes Mythical Racist Stereostypes
  By A3HA0A92FVYHOF on 2002-06-02
  Morgan Freeman is one of the most talented actors living, and Ben Afleck is my favorite young actor. But their choice of scripts hasn't always been top notch. The Sum Of all Fears is a case in point.

  Most folks in the US think that the threat to National Safety lies in the Middle East.

  But forget that.

  Hollywood moguls know something that the rest of us don't; the real bad guys are white folk, specifically German Nazis! And here we thought they had fallen at the end of WWII. ...

  And so, The Sum of all Fears hands us an all too familiar racist stereotype: the "evil white foreigner" trying to- what else?- enslave mankind and enthrone a white supremicist government.

  But our hero, Jack Ryan, is onto them. He ends up saving the world from those jerks, with only a few hundred (thousand) casualties from that darned nuclear blast. In spite of the vast carnage (none of which we see) we get a nice, clean happy ending. Hey, its only a nuke. What were you expecting? Economic depression? Mass rioting? Come on, this is Jack Ryan here!

  As a white person, I find all this white supremicist paranoia downright offensive. If hollywood were to make a film about black militant terrorists, people would understandably be offended, as no such group exists. Why are whites (especially Germans and Austrians) not irate about this type of film?

  No one was upset about films like Schindlers List for depicting Nazis as fiends. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, because Speilberg told the truth, and even understated their horrific barbarism.

  So why is hollywood so concerned about telling the truth about eastern terrorism?

  Skip this one. Trust me.
  
  

• INEFFECTIVE, HALF-CONCOCTED INTERNATIONAL THRILLER
  By A3SSOTZ6FR05WL on 2002-06-11
  The intelligent novel by Tom Clancy was sharp, intense and full of international intrigue and suspense. The film, on the other-hand, was half-cooked, tryingly and painstakingly politically-correct; and, try as it might, it just could not overcome a host of hokey, implausible scenes. Here are some of my favorite moments:

  >>> Morgan Freeman, a top government agent, has been critically injured in a car wreck caused by a nuclear explosion. While the president is whisked away via helicopter, a crack unit of the U.S.'s finest tend to Morgan Freeman and take him to the nearest hospital...No, wait, that's what would've happened if this movie made sense.  Instead, he's pedaled to the closest Sam's Club parking lot where he's treated like a cadaver. "Is that the CIA director?  Good.  Put him on that wooden counter, make sure he doesn't have a blanket, and I'll be with him right when he's close to death."

  >>> In the book, the SuperBowl contenders are the Denver Broncos vs. the NY Giants. In the film, the teams are: the "Miami Sharks" vs. the "Dallas Knights." Was that Al Pacino on the sideline? What was with those Uniforms? Was this "Any Given Sunday?"

  >>> In real life, the President of the U.S. attending the game would have a private suite. In the movie, he was sitting in G.A. "I think we can more adequately protect the President in Sec. 247, Row 23." Also,could they have been more discrete taking him out of the stadium? "Let's get the him the h#!% out of here! Quick, let's run across the 35-Yard Line!"

  >>> The terrorists in the book included: a Radical Pastinian, a Radical Islamic Militant, and a Radical Native American (all politically incorrect, but true depictions). The Terrorists in the film were, can you believe it...Neo-Nazis! (WHAT? Politically correct, although these people haven't existed in nearly ½ century); "HEETLUH VUZ a fool! VEE VILL GET ZEM TO DESTROY EACH UZZSER!" WHAT? Were these individuals supposed to have a shred of believability? Dr. Evil may have been the logical choice...

  >>> Liev Schrieber, as super-spy extroidinaire JOHN CLARK, knows fluent Russian, Arabic, etc., but doesn't know how to speak Ukranian. Isn't that pretty much the same as knowing English, but not Irish or Australian? Also, why is he the ONLY CIA operative in the entire movie? Major cutbacks? What's going on here?

  >>> Also, where was Air Force One flying? They're supposed to be flying one of the most technologically advanced airplanes at our disposal, yet it's shaking around like it's the 'Back to the Future' ride at Universal. "Captain, can't we fly above this turbulence?!?!?" "Certainly, Mr. President, but then the movie will have to rely on the script for tension, and not the 15 P.A.s who are outside shaking this set" "Well, then, keep shaking!"
  
  

• Don't Bother
  By A29IYGR7SNPRIV on 2002-07-06
  I love Morgan Freeman; he's one of the most gifted actors around today. That said, his presence alone can't save this movie. Ben Affleck looks as if he somehow wandered into the wrong production and isn't sure what to do about it. Aside from everything else, he lacks the gravitas that Harrison Ford brought to his roles in the Clancy films.

  It's a manipulative effort that tries to play upon everyone's worst fear: that of nuclear war, but succeeds only in being silly. The climax relies upon computer communications that could never possibly happen; the plot is so thin you can see daylight through it. There are some decent special effects but even combining the few positive aspects there are do not make this worth seeing.

  Don't waste your money. Go see The Bourne Identity instead; it, at least, is entertaining.
  
  

• He isn't Ford but still isn't bad as the same character!
  By A2DRHY9HJ4DE1F on 2002-07-19
  The film may start at a slow pace but it gains excitement as it gets to the plot-which is as follows!
  
  The Story: based on one of Clancy's most famous novels, Affleck plays a CIA agent Ryan. It's his job to stop the conflict or rather the conflict that's going to be created. Powerful Nuclear weapons have fallen into the hands of terrorists who want to start a war (and not a cold war) between Russia and the United States. The President doesn't trust a lot of people. He calls for Affleck (Ryan) and Freeman (Cabot). It's up to them to avoid the conflict from taking place.
  
  Basic: In total receiving over $110,000,000 at the box-office this great thriller is a must-watch. It's exciting has a great story and a great cast ensemble. Robinson is a good director as this movie reveals. Affleck and Freeman should come on as an on-screen duo more often!
  
  Who'd like this?: If you usually like war type flicks or X-files type flicks you might like this. It's also for all "I love trouble", "Good will Hunting", and "Pearl Harbour" fans.
  
  Recommendation and why: I enjoyed this but everybody might not. It's as good as the "Minority report". It has a good plot and a good script. It's not an ironic-coincidence type story. It's intelligent and interesting! It builds suspense and tends to surprise us now and then. It's boring at the beginning but interesting as the conflict grows. It has non-stop action and tends to amaze you. I usually enjoy smart action thrillers so I enjoyed this. But I prefer the original movie- Harrison Ford...
  
  
  
  
• DON'T SPEND ONE CENT ON THIS HORRIBLE ADAPTATION
  By AGEJE3WH26UBR on 2005-09-24
  
  The challenge facing any screenwriter attempting to adapt a Clancy novel is what to cut from the massive tome to fit the two-hour film run-time limit that theater owners so desperately covet.
  
  For instance, the huge scope of "Red October" was cut to the bone, but just deftly enough to be a decent film. The plots of the other two (Clancy books made into films) actually lent themselves well to film adaptation.
  
  Also, in light of 9/11, a case could be made that "Sum" is Clancy's most terrifying and realistic novel, so great care should have been exercised in bringing this to the screen.
  
  The cinematic result, however, is so hackneyed, so utterly ludicrous, that what was supposed to be high drama and suspense delivers nothing to the devoted Clancy fan but utter disappointment.
  
  The film's first problem is the casting of Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. Clancy's Jack Ryan is a CIA analyst, an intellectual who is always forced into reluctant action by circumstance.
  
  Affleck's portrayal of Ryan is nothing but the same wide-eyed, slack-jawed, one-note performance that he has phoned-in on every film he's ever done. Wherever he delivers any line concerning analysis of data, people or scenarios, Affleck is totally unbelievable as Ryan.
  
  At least Alec Baldwin, and especially Harrison Ford, correctly nailed the nuances of Ryan's character. But those guys are actors WITH chops, something Affleck is totally devoid of, and boy, is it obvious and ugly to watch.
  
  The second problem is the concession (to the Islamic community in this country) that the producers made of shifting the book's main protagonists from Islamic terrorists to Neo-Nazis. In one scene, the Nazi Big Cheese (the always wonderful, but here, totally wasted Alan Bates) reflects that Hitler was stupid for taking on the Russians and Americans instead of getting them to destroy each other. He plans to do just this by detonating a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil, and an associated rogue military act, to goad the two countries to full nuclear war and then rule the world afterward.
  
  In the book, the full-scale nuclear exchange scenario was not the design of the Islamic protagonist, but rather a horrifying extension of external circumstance surrounding the detonation of a terrorist's single atomic bomb. The film's revised premise is a terrible compromise that just makes no sense whatsoever: There wouldn't be much left to take over after a full nuke exchange between the U.S. and Russia.
  
  The film's biggest problem, however, is the script, which heaps contrivance upon contrivance, going from bad to worse as the film progresses.
  
  Examples: There is a jarring instant geographical shift of Ryan from the U.S. to a covert mission deep inside Russia with no explanation of how he got there; Ryan in downtown post-nuclear explosion Baltimore, clad in nothing but a sweater, with no apparent radiation/fallout after-effects; Ryan using the crashed helicopter radio that still functions after being EMP'd by the nuclear detonation (didn't the screenwriters do ANY research on the subject at all, or at least watch a "Broken Arrow" DVD?); Ryan utilizing his mentor's PDA (also exposed to the EMP but also still miraculously functioning) to communicate with the CIA's deepest mole inside the Kremlin (anybody at the CIA have a security problem with one of their own having a direct communication link to their highest level Russian source???!!!).
  
  And here's one for you: Ryan is running thru post-blast downtown Baltimore because he's chasing the bad guys who installed the bomb: Why would those guys still be in Baltimore? To hang out and roast radioactive weenies? No, it's because the screenwriters needed to set up a ridiculous fight scene with the personal bodyguard of the Nazi Big Cheese, who A.) had never been shown in the U.S. prior to this scene, and more importantly B.), WHY WOULD HE BE THERE WHEN HE KNOWS THE BOMB IS GOING TO DETONATE??!!
  
  And just when you think it's over, just when you thought it couldn't get any more ludicrous, the final scene is so silly that the writers should be locked up and never allowed near a Powerbook ever again.
  
  The wonderful supporting cast are the only redeeming thing this vapid clunker has to offer (once again, the magnificent Morgan Freeman rises above terrible material).
  
  Clancy himself is listed as exec producer of this croaker. Maybe not having enough cash to buy the Minnesota Vikings a few years ago was such a blow to his ego that he's willing to compromise the book he fashioned with such wondrous detail and imagination, just for the almighty buck.
  
  Geez, Tom, your fans, and especially Jack Ryan, deserve a WHOLE lot better.
  
  
  
• Politically correct Tom Clancy
  By AZXGPM8EKSHE9 on 2005-09-28
  I watched this the other night, and can't believe how politically correct it is. The bad guys are Austrians, Isrealis, and, indirectly, the U.S. military-industrial complex. I wonder what Tom Clancy thinks about that. Muslims are just innocent bystanders, and the liberals save the day, because war is all just a misunderstanding, or is caused by European nazis. This movie is shameless political correctness. The film is actually excellent, but I give it only two stars for the tired leftwing cliches. If they had filmed it based on Clancy's novel, it would have been great. I think Hollywood just copped out and got scared of portraying the Muslims as "the enemy", and so did what they always do: just turn the bad guys into white nazis. South Africans are no longer available, so they went to the "default": Austrians (guys, World War II is over).
  
  
• Clancy & the films producers sell out!!!!!!!
  By A3UT41TWD7N0D5 on 2002-08-23
  I have written a lenghthy review of this film @ IMDB.com which contains comparisons between the book and the movie. I will not repeat that review here. I don't want to put spoilers about the film in this review because I tried that before and Amazon.com would not post my review. So as not to violate the Amazon.com policy regarding spoilers. I will review the book and then comment on the movie.

  THE SUM OF ALL FEARS is a critical book in the Jack Ryan time line. In the book Jack is the Deputy Director of Intelligence and holds one of the highest positons in the CIA. The book then plots the middle eastern terrorists plans. It also goes into great depth to show the relationship between Jack, the President and the Presidents national security advisor. Agent Spinnaker the Russian spy helps to add to conflict as he feeds the CIA false data that will hopefully result in his becoming Russias new leader. Most importantly Jack forms an alliance with the Vice President Darling that will lead to Jack becoming Vice President after Darling becomes President in DEBT OF HONOR (DOH). After that Jack becomes President in EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EO).

  Next to THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER this is my favorite Clancy novel. This story has it all. It shows what a truely gifted writer Clancy is but then we come to the movie version of the book. I don't know how Clancy could support this baztardization of his book. Except for a nuclear weapon going off in the U.S. there are almost no other similarities between the book and the movie. And because Ben Affleck has assumed the role of Jack Ryan it is almost impossible to Make DOH or EO. In order to be President or Vice President the individual must be over 35 years old. Ben who was in his late 20's when this was made has a way to go yet.

  I understand that people who have not read the book may think that this film is okay but that is not who buys the majority of the tickets for the film. It is the fans of Clancy and the novel that buy the tickets. This movie had a built in fan base and Clancy along with the producers for this movie betrayed that base. I will never understand why Hollywood continues to make movies based on the popularity of a book and then changes the movie so drastically that it no longer adheres to the book itself. While movies such as TSOAF may generate some inital dollars it will not stand the test of time. Movies such as THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION which remained faithful to the books from which they were taken will stand the test of time and continue to generate dollars for the author and the producers. If this DVD has a commentary track on it I would like to hear the excuses they come up with for all the changes to the storyline.

  Lastly, if you saw the trailer for this movie you saw the best parts of the film. There are very few noteworthy special effects. The nuclear detonation in THE PEACEMAKERS was better than the detonation in this film. The brief scene of Russian fighter attacking a U.S. aircraft carrier only lasted as long the same scene in the trailer. What the viewer is treated to is too much of is Jack (Ben Aflleck) Ryan's dumbfounded expressions as he wanders from scene to scene.
  
  

• This film was an immense disappointment!
  By A2013JDMPUV6D9 on 2003-09-26
  So there I am on the couch, the DVD is loaded, the snacks are within reach, the opening credits are playing, and then... one of the worst movies I have ever seen spins out before me!

  I have been a Clancy fan since the beginning. I have read every book, seen every movie, and I will willingly admit that I have often been a bit soft when reviewing Tom Clancy's work because I genuinely like the guy's stories and what he has to say in them. I actually LOVED this book, so when I saw that Clancy himself was the executive producer of the film I thought great, he'll make it true to form. I was so wrong.

  Instead of angry militant middle-eastern fanatics discovering the means to construct a nuclear bomb (very scary and believable), he/they changed it to a secret international "society" of neo-Nazis (not very believable) constructing a bomb to start a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. In the book, the motives of the bad guys were clear. In the movie we barely are aware of who the bad guys really are. In the book, the bad guys own stupidity leads to a nuclear device which doesn't properly function, in the movie we see a full-blown, successful nuclear detonation. And speaking of said detonation, anybody over the age of 25 who remembers the cold war can only wonder why the movie never mentions radiation fallout from a bomb that detonated in a packed football stadium less than an hour from Washington D.C. The closing scene shows Ben Affleck's character lounging on the grass within sight of the White House, presumably only a short time after the nuclear explosion!?!?

  Speaking of Ben Affleck, I really like the guy and most of the roles he has played but he is monumentally unconvincing as Jack Ryan. He doesn't come across as a guy with a PhD, he doesn't come across as a former Marine Officer, he doesn't come across as a man who is growing comfortably rich from his years working the stock market prior to joining the CIA. In fact, they should have cast a man 10 years older than Affleck for this role, but I guess they figured it was worth changing the story and characters just to get a sure-sell name into the film. How disgusting...

  I remember thinking when I read The Sum of All Fears that it was a monstrously long book, but all those pages were necessary to tell the story properly. This film suffers from the usual Hollywood dilemma: make it good, or make it short enough to hold the short attention span of most viewers. Unfortunately, they made the ill-fated choice to cut out crucial parts of the story, which eventually leaves those who had read the book disgusted and those who never read the book simply confused by the resulting disjointed, sloppy plotline.

  Don't buy this film and don't waste your time watching this film.
  
  

• The Sum of All Failures
  By A322YEMCWR4SP3 on 2005-01-08
  From seeing the Sum of All Fears it looks like Clancy needs to excercize more conrol over his books being released as movies. The director & writers did a simply horrible job. First, the movie is nearly completely sanatized of any Islamic terrorist themes which were in the book. The director obviously went way overboard in trying to make everything so P.C.that any reader of the book will see the movie as boring and lame, not to mention virtually unrecognizable. Also, the native Indian radical is written out of the movie as are the East German scientists & a great ending with peace in the Middle East. Nearly all of the Arabic characters are also written out of the movie too. If is by FAR the worst adaption of any Clancy book to movies.
  
  The movie also confuses Jack Ryan fans by making him unmaried, his CIA co-workers look like a bunch of high school kids at lunch break & the acting is fairly poorly done except for the guy playing the Russian president. The going back to the past just does not work & the flick is a failure. Don't waste your time or money on it. Go see the Search for Red October or Clear and Present Danger instead.
  
  
• It's a *movie* folks...
  By A5TDXW3COL37S on 2002-06-19
  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!
  
  
• A Mixed Bag For A Clancy Techno-Thriller!
  By ALR35EFI69S5R on 2003-07-25
  Oh, dear! What was Ben Affleck thinking when he signed on to star in the functional equivalent of `Young Indiana Jones' to a role that has Harrison Ford's hefty paw-prints all over it? Even if the film were a faithful recreation of Tom Clancy's superb and thought-provoking thriller about what happens when an Arab extremist group gains possession of an Israeli nuclear weapon lost during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which it is not, the ploy of giving Jack Ryan the time machine treatment is hokey at best, and ruinous at worst. Luckily, the script is so hackneyed and implausible at parts that it was downright silly.

  For example, Ryan is taking a helicopter ride when an atomic detonation occurs. The several kiloton blast knocks the chopper out of the sky, but Ryan survives. Right. The blast would have melted the chopper as it knocked it from the sky with a heat blast so intense nothing could have possibly survived. But Hollywood can't kill off the Ryan franchise by pulling a Terminator-like turn and sending Ryan back into the past to get killed since that would prevent our boy Ben wouldn't mature into becoming Alex Baldwin, who then proceeds to save the free world in "The Hunt For Red October", set later in Ryan's career. Got it? Me neither.

  Having said all that, had the main character's name not been Jack Ryan, and had I not already read the book and therefore arrived predisposed as to what it was that I was going to see dramatized, the film is not all that bad. As a techno-thriller, it is exciting, well photographed, and has a decent cast, including a charming Morgan Freeman (does this guy never take a vacation?) as Jack's Director of Counter Intelligence (DCI) connection. Lee Garlington is fetching and attractive as Jack's main squeeze, and Live Schreiber is particularly good as a young John Clark, a figure prominent in some of the later Clancy novels. The film is facts paced, has some interesting action sequences, and as an evening's entertainment is worth the watching. It is hardly in the caliber of films such as "The Hunt For Red October", "Patriot Games", or "Clear And Present Danger", but maybe Ben can try again when his paws grow a little with age. Ford is getting a little long in the tooth to be playing Ryan. Enjoy!
  
  

• Impressive and gripping--3.8 stars rounds to 4.
  By A2XRMQA6PJ5ZJ8 on 2002-11-10
  The producers of this film decided to change the villains from Islamic extremists to neo-nazis (after all, Nazis don't have a lobby--everyone hates them). The producers have to be hating life post-911 since in my opinion at least this greatly detracted from the relevance of the film. Serves them right for listening to Political Correctness rather than reality.

  The movie is based, of course, on Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum of All Fears" and deals with the detonation by terrorists of an atomic bomb on American soil. To that extent, the movie follows the novel. But the movie alters the villains ..., and apparently decided to cast the hero, Jack Ryan, as a much younger man evidently to enable Ben Affleck to play the part. Afleck is OK as Jack Ryan, but only OK. Morgan Freeman does his customary great job in the role as the CIA director, and his mentoring of Ryan is my favorite part of the movie. The chemistry between Freeman and Affleck is good, which helps to make up for, well, Affleck. The rest of the cast turns in pretty decent performances.

  Since in the movie Ryan is a junior analyst rather than Deputy CIA Director (to enable Affleck to play Ryan) the part where Ryan prevents world war 3 is less plausible. Readers of the book will know what I mean--spoiler omitted here.

  Overall, the movie moves along pretty well, and tells a complicated story about as coherently as possible in the movie medium. There is plenty of drama and action. The special effects are good.

  This is not a great movie, but it is a good one. The DVD audio and video are very good.
  
  

• Much of the Essense
  By A30L0YJ31NEAHI on 2002-06-02
  As a devoted Clancy reader, I went to the theater prepared to thoroughly despise this film - but I didn't.

  While the Ryan timeline has been altered and the source of the conspiracy has moved from the Middle East to Europe, the significant elements of the story have been preserved. I will not do a disservice to Clancy readers by revealing too much; instead, I tell you this - suspend judgment, suspend disbelief, and GO SEE THE MOVIE. It is tense and it hops. Don't drink a soda - you won't want to take a break during the movie. This movie will not win an Oscar, but it may very well win your favor.

  I just wish the films producers, backers and directors had the moral courage to leave the original plot line intact. That failing is why I gave this film 4 stars instead of 5. A petulant decision, I grant you, but my call.
  
  

• Laughable
  By A2KZLEDNVTF3J9 on 2002-06-05
  This movie is ridiculous beyond description. First of all, it dramatically altered the plot of the book it is based on purely for the sake of political correctness, and came out with an absurd plot which is laughable to anyone with even a basic interest in geopolitics (Lets see, everyone hates nazis, make them try to take over the world and people will love it, right?). Hmmm, where to continue...NATO peacekeepers in Chechnya?!? Umm, THAT WOULD BE AN INVASION OF SOVREIGN RUSSIAN TERRITORY, AND AN ACT OF WAR!!!!

  The President's staff in the movie actually agrees that the Russians would "call it a day" if we launched a massive nuclear strike against Russia, crippling the Russian military, and undoubtedly killing millions of people, leaving them with only several hundred nuclear weapons. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? They would hit back with everything they had!!!

  It is also absurd that the government would immediately assume that the Russian government would be behind what is obviously a terrorist act, and respond within a matter of hours.

  Worst and most unbelievably of all, Ben Affleck, supposedly a CIA agent with 14 months of experience, convinces both Russia and the U.S. to back down from a de facto state of war because of a "hunch." HA.

  Now just for some little points the die-hards like myself would notice:

  Hmmm, an American spy ordering two Ukrainian guards to voluntarily disarm themselves when they both could easily kill him?

  The idea that a U.S. Navy carrier battle group equipped with beyond cutting edge radar systems would not be able to pick up a flight of Backfire Bombers on full afterburner, but vintage-70's russian radar could pick up U.S. stealth bombers which are INVISIBLE TO RADAR!!!! (By the way, our B-2's would fly over the north pole, not over Poland.)

  Furthermore, I feel that this movie could [upset] some of the Russians who may happen to see it. This is something that I think should be considered at a time when the Russian President is bending over backwards to build a new reltaionship with America, and facing a considerable amount of criticism at home.

  The audience was literally laughing it was so bad in the showing I saw.

  So, to some it up:

  Political Correctness: BAD
  Awful plot: BAD
  =
  BAD MOVIE!!!!
  
  

• The sum of my fears... it was only a decent film.
  By A15S44J4NHU4LS on 2002-06-14
  I watched this film the second week it was out. I have not had a chance to read the Tom Clancy novel it was based on. (I'm not too into hidden political agendas, cold war stuff anyway.) As for the film, I liked it. But it wasn't as fast paced as I expected it to be. It's definitely no Hunt for Red October.

  This film shows us Jack Ryan's introduction into the CIA. If this signals the beginning of more Tom Clancy novels-turned-movies to come, then I suppose Ben Affleck is a worthy successor to Harrison Ford. (I can't say the same for the President's aides in the movie however. They did a poor job. They're supposed to exist to show the differing stances people have on nuclear warfare. To me, they just looked confused. Even the President appears to be an ego-driven cry-baby. But I digress.) I like the plot and how it eventually comes together and has a resolution at the end. However, I really didn't like the ending. It was almost cheesy.

  In all, I would recommend this film for its easy to follow and engaging plot line but not for its acting.

  LEAP rating (each out of 5):
  ============================
  L (Language) - 3.5 (no wit, no bang, no punch, no kick, no zip, no zap; in a word, "ordinary")
  E (Erotica) - 0.1 (Bridget Moynahan looks so hot!)
  A (Action) - 3 (a nuclear bomb goes off in Baltimore )
  P (Plot) - 4 (easy to follow and engaging plot with a clean resolution at the end)
  
  

• Leave it on the shelf
  By A3E7X8UC4K6CZ on 2002-12-10
  I love Tom Clancy books. They are a great read and quite an adventure. I also like all the actors in this movie. They are all quality actors with great bodies of work however this is not a film that will shine in anyone's resume. The script, what little there is , bears little resemblence to the great book that it is based upon.
  The movie loses crediblity in the very beginning and never regains it. I certainly wasn't expecting it to be a documentary but some common sense in dealing with nuclear fallout and radioactive materials would have been helpful. I like Affleck and feel that he would be a good Jack Ryan but he doesn't get a chance in this movie. Poor character development, poor plot line and all you have left is action scenes which just don't add up.
  If you truly want to see this movie, just rent it and save your money for better movies to buy. Shame on the screenwriters. They certainly could do better work than this.
  
  
• what a mess
  By A2M377P9ZS32Q on 2005-08-08
  there's not much more to say about how badly every aspect of this film sucks. other reviewers have pretty much said it all. i'll just say this: i hated Sum Of All Fears and I never even read the book. To me, an adapted films correlation to its source material is irrelevent. If the movie was an exact replication of the book that would not make it any better. the movie sucks on its own merit. from the acting (cumulatively, the worst i have EVER SEEN), to the dialogue (often painful and generall obvious), to the action (as in the complete lack thereof), this movie is a complete failure. And Ben Affleck should thank whoever it was that gave him permission to be a movie star.
  
  
• Too painful but also too implausible:SPOILERS
  By A3TD0DHQ4CFRDS on 2002-06-05
  I went to see SUM this past weekend with a strange mixture of anticipation and ambivalence. I like Ben Affleck (but he is no Harrison Ford). I like Morgan Freeman (but he is no James Earl Jones). I like action movies (but usually find Tom Clancy too hardware and acronym obsessed). Doesn't a movie about terrorism (admittedly made before 9/11) trivialize a national tragedy?

  I don't think this movie works ... If the villians had been left Middle Eastern (as they were in the book),the producers might never have released the movie at all. If the theory is that this is just a movie and not an accidental documentary, it has to be different enough to make people comfortable watching it. Why do you think so many producers chose to eliminate scenes with the World Trade Center Towers after 9/11? Because seeing the WTC pulls the viewer into reality and destroys the momentum of the movie experience.

  The movie doesn't work because the plot developments in the first half of the movie are completely disregarded in the second half. Ben Affleck is completely convincing as the CIA desk jockey - some of the best scenes are those with his co-analysts and I can buy the language fluency and the research expertise. But his run through the burning streets of Baltimore and his fight with the terrorist on the docks just don't ring true. It feels too much like a staged fight, without weight or menace. I don't know what Harrison Ford's secret is, but you always feel that even though he is no super hero he has the guts or brawn to play out a violent encounter. Ben is still too "light" in action scenes. If there are going to be more Jack Ryan films (and Ben deserves another shot at this role), this needs seriously to be fixed.

  The technology-based part of the plot also has holes you could drive a tank through. The CIA director doesn't notice his cell phone going off because of crowd noise? He is a senior intelligence officer, sitting next to the President, for heaven's sake - don't you think he would be a little more attentive and professional, just by training? After the nuclear detonation, cell phones (or any phones, or anything?!) work, and a helicopter crash is survivable. No one beyond ground zero gets radiation poisoning? The Russians order Stealth aircraft shot down (big duh for that line)? I am willing to suspend disbelief in an action movie, but I can't leave my brain at the door.

  And finally, the romance element is completely underwritten. A series of Hallmark card romantic encounters set up solely so that the phone can ring and interrupt them. There was no individuality or chemistry to make Jack's sense of loss feel genuine. Even a young doctor has some "doctor-ness" about her, and the actress playing this part made me feel that she was doing just that - playing a part. Watch Ann Archer in the earlier films - she is so different at home and at work.

  So what kept me in my seat till the credits? Some amazing acting, all the more amazing because there was not much substance to actually portray. Morgan Freeman struggling to supress a smile when Jack's girlfriend hangs up on him after Jack excuses standing her up because he is on a plane to Russia. Liev Schreiber demonstrating the brawn and intelligence that befits an intelligence field operative, especially in the scene in the hospital in Moscow with the mother of one of the missing Soviet nuclear scientists. And Ciaran Hinds - whose expressive face seems full of wisdom and conflict all the way through this movie. He made what could have been a charicature of Russian leaders into a surprisingly sympathetic protagonist.

  I would not recommend that anyone personally affected by 9/11 see this movie. During the nuclear explosion, the audience became frozen and silent, and a couple of people got up and left quickly. This is just a movie but we all leave the theatre and walk into the reality of 9/11 and its aftermath. For many it is still too soon to see our national fate on a movie screen.
  
  

• The fears of all post-9/11 filmmakers.
  By on 2002-11-27
  Deeply compromised adaptation of the Tom Clancy potboiler. Director Phil Alden Robinson and his cadre of screenwriters tippy-toe around, about, but never directly on, the subject of mass murder by terrorists. The immediate point of comparison to 9/11 in this film would be the small nuclear bomb that presumably obliterates the city of Baltimore, MD. I say "presumably" because we're of course not permitted to see the results of the devastation: Robinson & Co., by the use of very heavy editing, attempt to spare us from associating their fictional event to the real event that occurred a year ago. (Well, some windows are blown out, and a small, rather pretty computer-animated mushroom cloud is perceived for a split-second, indicating the city may not be completely wiped-out, after all.) Indeed, by film's end, it's as if the blast never occurred: in the last scene, Ben Affleck and his pretty wife are having lunch in the park. The End. One wonders why the film studio simply didn't scrap this whole project and eat the loss, if they were so fearful of the movie's subject-matter. Why go to the trouble of making a movie about a catastrophic event if you're not even going to play that event for dramatic value? Of course, the supreme irony is that the fearful filmmakers, who shot this movie before 9/11, changed the Muslim villains of Clancy's story to a cabal of Neo-Nazis, in order to avoid accusations of insensitivity from the Arab-American community. (If what I've heard is true. I've never read the book, myself. If the book doesn't feature Arab terrorists, I stand humbly corrected.) I give *The Sum of All Fears* a 2nd star primarily for the excellent supporting actors (Morgan Freeman, a delightfully smooth Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, Philip Baker Hall, et al.), and for the overall professionalism of the direction . . . by which I mean that even if the story is implausible, the action sequences are not. However, Ben Affleck, filling the shoes of Harrison Ford as CIA agent Jack Ryan, is a massive liability. Not only is he a skunk at a garden party, in terms of comparison with the rest of the cast, but he makes one appreciate just how good his predecessor in the role really was.
  
  
• Big-budget movie with low-budget quality. I want a refund.
  By AEBZVNKHJNJHU on 2002-12-06
  I've seen two films in the past year that while watching them I thought they were decent. Then when they were over and I made my way out of the theatre, all of their bad points started piling up until I got disgusted with them and decided the movies actually sucked. Ali was the first. This was the second.

  At least Ali had a good performance by Will Smith. This one had--uh, well, nothing redeeming. Ben Afflect seemed to be running around clueless or frantic the whole movie. Morgan Freeman was sufficient as the typical CIA honcho. No big acting stretch there.

  The spineless studio drones decided to make the Neo-Nazis, rather than Islamic fanatics, the driving force in attempting to start a world war. Puh-lease. Well... hey, maybe they're right... perhaps Islamic fanatics would never do anything terroristic. And that's just one problem with the story alone.

  It seemed like they were trying to make the movie look big-budget while at the same time they didn't want to spend any money on it. The nuclear blast was seen only through a distant mushroom cloud, the hospital windows getting blown in, and the helicopters knocked around in the sky. And even those special effects were brief. If you saw the tv commercial for the movie, you saw all of the special effects. Hello??? What a wasted opportunity. And after that, one of the most ridiculous scenes was Ben Affleck in an urban area at night with flames (supposedly the result of a nuclear blast) lapping at him while he's running to the dramatic music. And how convenient that he could RUN to his destination, in a city that had been devastated by a nuclear blast, in time to save the world.

  Then you have the typical directoral mistakes that I instantly notice and take me right out of the movie. For instance when someone cuts a hole out of a fence and sets it on the ground next to them. Then they crawl through the hole in the fence to the other side. And suddenly the section of fence that they removed is now on their side of the fence, as though they pushed it through initially. That kind of junk in movies annoys me.

  There were so many improbabilities and absurdities that I don't want to go into them all. It's just stupid stuff that should not happen in a movie like this. Taken individually they can be shrugged off, but cumulatively they destroy the movie and the experience.

  Again, I'm at a loss at how many reviewers liked (or even loved) this movie. Have they not seen the preceeding (and much better) Clancy adaptations? Or is it that they just don't think about it? Some have such low expectations. This was a big-budget movie that in the end came across as low-budget cheese. I won't even rent this to see it again, it annoyed me so much.
  
  

• Quite lacking
  By A10JDPEQ8GJ2K1 on 2003-03-21
  Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, and Tom Clancy. How can you go wrong? If you want to know, see this movie. I am simply giving it a star because I see no reason to give it anything higher than that.It wasn't funny, it didn't develop, it's climax stunk, it's adaptation "commercialized," it's acting poor, it's script terrible.I was trying to contemplate how to give it two stars. This is just a bad movie. I don't know if it's one or two stars, but either way, it's really bad. Thank you for taking the time to read my review and feel free to leave me a helpful/not helpful feedback. God Bless America!
  
  
• this movie delivers
  By AGMZU36G58FCX on 2005-12-21
  As someone well versed in various kinds of literature, someone who has read (and enjoyed) almost all of Tom Clancy's novels, and as a professional videographer, I have to say, this is a great flick.
  
  For those who are upset about the adaptation, what do you expect? When taking an 800 plus page book and condensing it down to a two hour movie, some things are going to change. The second and third Clancy movies- especially Clear and Present Danger - were also adapted to give Harrison Ford the action spotlight. But now that Ford is ageing, Paramount (who after all, is a business needing to turn a profit) needed to re-invent the franchise. The move to make it not just a new actor, but to show it as the start of Jack Ryan's career was cleverly done. Most of all, it held true to the idea of the book, that when we base our actions off of our fears and suspicions, our peace can be torn apart by a few depraved individuals.
  
  This movie falls into the category of action/thriller. As such, not everything is true to life, but instead is designed for entertainment and suspense. And it delivers. For something in the action category it has a remarkably intelligent script. It's a little slow in the beginning for those who are looking for nothing more than explosions and shootouts, but it's worth it. It also has better than average cinematography compared to most action flicks. The effects are well done and not at all cheesy, as many action flicks have taught us to expect.
  
  The acting is well-done, with a typically good performance by Affleck and a stellar performance by Freeman. The soundtrack is also fantastic, especially the rendition of the national anthem at the football game.
  
  Bottom line, if you're a reader who expects movies scripts to be written like books, don't see this movie. If you accept that literature and movies are entirely different formats of entertainment then you'll probably enjoy this movie, and it is certainly worth owning
  
  
• Huh? Clancy's Novel Gets PC Treatment...
  By A2V3E1AACFUM44 on 2002-05-30
  One thing strikes me as extremely odd about this film: the folks in Hollywood have opted to get rid of the Middle Eastern terrorists from the book and replace them with Neo-Nazis.

  Why?

  I know it's certainly more politically correct to hate white supremacists than the "religion of peace" crowd, but I can't buy the idea of neo-Nazis getting their hands on a nuke and subsequently detonating it. I mean, these goofballs generally just goosestep around at their silly protest marches, proclaiming their ignorance to the world. It requires no stretch of the imagination, however, to believe that if Islamic terrorists ever get their hands on a nuke, they're gonna set it off at the earliest opportunity - a scenario which would have made this movie much more cogent and harrowing. So, why the plot change? Who knows? Perhaps the producers hired CAIR as a creative consultant for the film.

  So, the sum of all MY fears has been realized: Hollywood leftists are now tinkering with the plots of novels under the banner of political correctness...

  No thanks.
  
  

• Disaster
  By A3BAXQ8I74FNTS on 2002-08-20
  I'm a big Tom Clancy fan and the Sum is one of his best books. So it was a huge disappointment seeing this film. There were two drawbacks at the outset: Affleck (whom I like) playing Ryan, not Harrison Ford, and the modifications compared to the book.

  Apart from these (not important for those who don't know Clancy) the suspense and action of the book is totally missing from the movie. The story is very slow and predictable, the characters not convincing. All Clancy movies, even the rather bad Clear and Present Danger were much better.
  
  

• Clear and Present Danger [Blu-ray]
• The Hunt for Red October [Blu-ray]
• Patriot Games [Blu-ray]
• Men in Black [Blu-ray]
• The Mummy [Blu-ray]