CIA analyst Jack Ryan must stop the plans of a Neo Nazis faction that threatens to induce a catastrophic conflict between the United States and Russia's newly elected president by detonating a nuclear weapon at a football game in Baltimore.
When the president of Russia suddenly dies, a man whose politics are virtually unknown succeeds him. The change in political leaders sparks paranoia among American CIA officials, so CIA director Bill Cabot recruits a young analyst to supply insight and advice on the situation. Then the unthinkable happens: a nuclear bomb explodes in a U.S. city, and America is quick to blame the Russians. Written by
Sujit R. Varma
According to the director's DVD commentary, this was the first American film unit (the second unit) to enter the Kremlin. Red Heat (1988) was the first American unit to film in Moscow. See more »
The three primary effects of nuclear detonation, flash, heat and blast, are confused. In the blast scene from inside the hospital, the shock wave and flash of light arrive together. The only way for this to happen is if the hospital was right next to the stadium, in which case the hospital would be obliterated. Furthermore the heat from the blast appears to have no effect. Everyone else, further from the explosion, would first be blinded/burned by the light/heat before the shock wave would hit them, as the shock wave travels only at about the speed of sound. Also on the TV the blast in the stadium is seen the fraction of a second before the blast hits the hospital. Even with a direct link to the camera in the stadium the picture of the blast couldn't arrive earlier than the flash of the light from the bomb itself. See more »
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel. By Day Two, Israeli ground forces appeared on the verge of defeat. In the event that their ground forces were overrun, an Israeli A-4 jet took off on patrol with one nuclear bomb.
See more »
Very entertaining. Why do reviewers always have to compare to the book?
As usual, I am very glad I saw the movie BEFORE I read the reviews on this site. Why do soooo many reviewers here have to compare the movie to the book? A book allows 300-400 pages (or more) to develop plots and characters. We are reviewing movies on IMDb, not books. I guess reviewers here want to appear erudite by scraping up details from the book that get omitted or distorted on the screen. I am a very active reader, but I simply cannot read every book that makes it to the movie theatres. Writing a book (a fairly isolated event) is a significantly different event than producing a movie which involves countless people and issues: screenwriters, actors, writers, directors, production people, locations, etc., etc. Making all these book to movie comparisons isn't fair to the movie or the book. Many times I just want to watch a movie and judge it on its merits alone - as a movie, period. I did not read this book, but I watched the movie and found it very entertaining and extremely absorbing.
17 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?