The Sum of All Fears (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
491 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Forget that you have read the book.
svannozzi11 June 2002
This movie is very good and worth the money to go see. IF... you are able to forget that you read a book by the same title who's author was the executive director of the film. If you are able to separate the two you will enjoy the film. I found that I was able to enjoy the film but had long discussions and was bothered by many inconsistencies from the book. The location of the action (Baltimore), the time (2002), the time the activity took place in Jack Ryan's life (early), the level of his position within the CIA (low), the lack of any other fears to sum up, all were very different from the book and while I was able to enjoy the film as I watched it is has been bothering me more as I reflect on it.

So my recommendation is see the movie then read the book, I have found that to be true with most of Clancy's work. I guess a movie just can't handle the whole story.
30 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well Made Thriller
eastbergholt200210 March 2007
Sum of All Fears is an enjoyable thriller and the type of movie the Hollywood studios have always been good at making. It's slick, expensive-looking, well-acted and two hours of far-fetched fun. Ben Affleck plays CIA Agent and superman Jack Ryan PhD. Ryan is a former marine, linguist and all-round polymath who saves the world from impending disaster. Affleck is youthful and convincing as Ryan and makes him seem fallible and likable. Ryan becomes a confidant of the wise and sensible CIA Director Bill Cabot (Morgan Freeman) and acquires a beautiful and successful girlfriend (Bridget Moynahan) who believes he's a historian.

The plot is complicated and involves a new Russian leader (Ciaran Hands) who spouts anti-U.S. rhetoric. A Russian chemical attack on Chechnya increases the tension between the two countries. An Israeli atomic bomb is found in the Egyption desert,a relic of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict. Neo-Nazi terrorists (led by Alan Bates) want to provoke a nuclear conflict between America and Russia. They acquire the bomb from a South African arms dealer and explode it in Baltimore. The U.S. blames the Russians and the two countries are about to commence all-out nuclear war until Ryan works out what is happening and it all ends happily. The message is that the new Russian leaders are reasonable men signifying that the world has moved on from the Commie bashing flicks of the 1980s.

The idea of a terrorist nuclear attack is topical, but unfortunately the Neo-Nazi villains seem very 1970s. The film has good character actors in supporting roles (e.g., Liev Schrieber, James Cromwell). I much prefer Afflek's Ryan to that of the 52 year-old Harrison Ford who by 1994's Clear and Present Danger seemed too old and surly for the role.
31 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Sum Of All Cop Outs
michael_russell19 January 2004
I read the book "The Sum of All Fears" with fascination--Palestenians discover an Isreali nuclear device lost when the aircraft is shot down in the six day war, sell it to Al Queda, and the arab terrorists proceed to blow up Denver with said nuke.

I was very much looking forward to this movie, only to find that for fear of offending Al Queda, the director and screenwriters had substituted some ridiculous plot about German Nazi's and turned the whole thing into a melodramatic hash.

This could have been a GREAT, prophetic, movie. instead it became a silly waste of money and talent. I know Tom Clancy hated the movie, so did I.
165 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Holes big enough to fly a jet through
mrchaos335 July 2003
This is a ridiculous movie. First the casting of Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan just doesn't make sense, chronologically (he's already been played by the much older Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin) or physically – Affleck just isn't commanding enough for the role. Secondly the movie is simply capitalizing on North America's new found fear of terrorism on home turf, and thirdly the screenwriter Paul Attanasio took huge liberties with the Tom Clancy novel, including, in a stroke of misguided political correctness, changing the bad guys from Middle Eastern to Nazis. Of course everyone hates Nazis, so the filmmakers are not going to offend anyone (Hollywood finds it so hard to get good hateful villains now that Russia is no longer communist) but are we to believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy by super-rich and powerful Nazis to pit two world powers against one another? And how, after the blast (yes, there is a huge atomic explosion), does Ben Affleck piece together this entire conspiracy using only a cell phone and a palm pilot? I'm willing to suspend disbelief in most movies, but this movie has holes big enough to fly a jet through.
107 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Totally ruined by some Hollywood dimwit changing the bad guys
p-jonsson21 November 2014
Well, if we start with the good. The story itself is not really too bad and if you forget the title, the mention of Tom Clancy and Jack Ryan, then the movie is decent enough. It is a reasonably well implemented thriller. Not great but worth seeing.

However, the book is about Arab terrorists performing terrorist acts by means of thermonuclear devices causing the two superpowers to come to the brink of a nuclear war. The movie has replaced this foe with some nonsense story about emerging neo-Nazis wanting to take over the world. This is just utter rubbish. It is obviously a political decision by some asshole not wanting to upset the Arab community so he picks a "safe" bad guy instead. The speech where the head Nazi compares themselves with a virus was just unintelligent writing and painful to watch.

Nazis are obvious bad guys and can be put to good use in movies, just as communists and Muslim terrorists and a whole bunch of other groups, but not when the original material uses another, much more logical, foe. The original foes in the book would have some force behind them in the radical Muslim community that made their plans for world takeover after the superpowers had annihilated each other at least somewhat plausible. If you ignore minor details like that there would really not be much to take over after a barrage of nuclear missiles from USA and Russian of course. But a few twisted old Nazis that sits in hiding in dark rooms cooking together this hair-brained scheme? No way! I am sad to say that whoever asshole that decided to rewrite the main adversary of this movie ruined it totally for me. I am really happy that I never watched it when it came out in the theaters but instead watched it, in a sense "for free", on my Netflix subscription.
49 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful Movie
tempusfugit31 May 2002
This movie was awful. Ben Affleck was a huge miscast, and from there the whole story falls apart. They do not follow the story from the book, and make the film all the more dated because of this. Save your money, and go see something else. Rent the other three Jack Ryan movies, they will make you long for the good old days
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jack Ryan Movies
dfreeman-79 April 2006
People seem to expect jack Ryan movies to be more or less the way they imagine the books to be. This phenomenon is almost never the case when a movie comes out BASED ON THE BOOK. I emphasis BASED because it is never MEANT to be exactly what the book is. In "Sum Of All Fears", there is a switch from Arab to Fascist terrorists. Sure, some scenes are changed and others, unfortunately, left out. But being that the book is only based on the story, it is NOT GOINT TO BE the story itself. Somethings don't translate well on screen. A book is several hundred pages long. A movie two hours, and they can't very well put every detail from the book into the movie. I saw the film and thought it was good. I also saw all the other Clancy films and enjoyed them for what they were. Maybe not so good by comparison to the book, but never the less good for what they were. As for some characters, for example, Mary Pat Foley would have been unrecognized had it not been for the credits. She is known more for her role as a spy in "Cardinal of the Kremlin", which would make a great movie, if they ever did it.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Enthralling film. LOVED IT
Undead_Master30 October 2002
After reading several negative reviews, I was shocked when I finally saw `The sum of all fears'. I simply LOVED this movie . It was totally thrilling. It had all the ingredients of a great adventure and to top it off it was visually poetic and emotionally stirring.

I never read the book this is based on, and I'm not a Tom Clancy fan. I came into this movie expecting to hate it, because I have hated all the other films in the Jack Ryan series. They were too dry and technical, lacking immediacy or emotion and they felt more like lectures on the way government works and how the military operates than movies. Those films were made for Tom Clancy fans. The sum of all fears was made for a different audience, which is unfortunate since it is based on one of his novels. There is no doubt that it crosses the line into fantasy several times for dramatic effect. Things happen that probably wouldn't happen in real life. People do things that are impossibly heroic and unrealistic. I'm convinced this is why Clancy fans hate this adaptation. For me, these traits (considered flaws by many people) helped free the movie from the constraints of absolute realism, allowing it to become more poetic and powerful than it ever could be otherwise.

Director Phil Alden Robinson deserves most of the praise for this film. He's a new name for me, but looking at his filmography, it was interesting to see that he was the writer and director for field of dreams, another film that I totally loved. He was a very odd choice to helm this film, because field of dreams is a bizarre movie where reality and fantasy meet head on. It's an ultra surreal American fairy tale. It's like a happy David Lynch film, or a Luis Buñuel film with a wholesome center. This is not the kind of director you would normally choose to make a movie like the sum of all fears. The clash between the ultra realism of Clancy's material and Robinson's willingness to forgo realism in favor of dreamy fairy tale lyricism creates a wonderful sense of vibrancy that I would never have anticipated.

After seeing the sum of all fears, I am now convinced that Robinson will go on to make a huge name for himself. He is a truly gifted director with an incredible ability to communicate through images. I can't wait to see his next film. If field of dreams is any indication, he is just good a writer as he is as a director, and I am excited to see what other sorts of ideas he might produce.

The movie also has tremendous performances by Morgan Freeman, and (surprisingly) Ben Affleck. He's way to young to play Jack Ryan, so he doesn't even try. The Jack Ryan in this movie is a reinvented character. He's basically a young guy, with the mentality of an idealist, working his way up in the CIA, while trying to juggle a bachelors social life. For me, he works in this film and he plays that kind of character perfectly.

The bottom line is this: If you love Tom Clancy and you've read every one of his books, you're probably going to hate this movie. If you have never read the book, and have no real interest in Clancy's work, you'll probably at least enjoy it. If your like me, and you don't mind films that let drama interfere with rationality, you'll probably love it.
25 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I know Jack Ryan and Ben is no Jack Ryan
hec42421 April 2003
I didn't notice who was responsible for casting, but they made a huge mistake in casting Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. I heard about him inheriting the role from Harrison Ford for some reason, but my first choice would have been to go back to Alec Baldwin, who did an excellent job in the Hunt for Red October. Morgan Freeman, usually brilliant, also seems to be thrown into this movie incorrectly. The story was convincing, but again star power doesn't necessarily translate into great story telling. Let Ben continue to do the romantic comedies and action movies, but leave the strong serial characters to someone who can truly embody the role.
53 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Um, yes, I need to deliver some information to prevent a war, is that cool with you guys? Worth a rent.
james-forrest30 December 2007
First thing that struck me was the casting of Ben Affleck- im not sure why and if this was just me, but i expected him to come out with some punch lines and start cracking jokes at any second- he just didn't fit the role for me personally. Morgan Freeman also didn't seem to have a solid cast in this movie.

The story was fairly captivating however, Cromwell was good to watch as always and Morgan Freeman did his best given the role Overall worth a rent but probably not a buy guys. Catch it on TV if you can and you will be probably entertained for that night.

7/10
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting and thrilling installment in which a young analyst , Jack Ryan, must supply advise to US President , then goes into action
ma-cortes31 August 2014
Jack Ryan's entry with lots of noisy action , thrills , chills , tension and amazing thriller . This blockbuster is an acceptable adaptation of the novel by Tom Clancy , companion to other prior renditions . The title is paraphrased from a Winston Churchill speech; "Why, you can take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears." It deals with CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) along with a ranking member (Morgan Freeman) of Presidential administration must thwart the plans of a terrorist 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. As there are 27,000 Nuclear Weapons and One Is Missing . Now Ryan goes back in action for the most vital assignment of his life : to save the President (James Cromwell) and the nation .

Stirring outing filled with emotion , suspense , chills , twisted intrigue and extraordinary nail-biting action scenes . This film is a prequel to the others in the Jack Ryan series . The 'Harrison Ford' films are direct follow-ups to The hunt for Red October (1990) despite the recast of Alec Baldwin's role . Nevertheless, in this film we see Jack Ryan meet John Clark, something which also happens in Clear and present danger (1994) . Therefore this film might be best understood as a reboot of the Jack Ryan series . Interesting screenplay plenty of twists and thrills by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne . However , the filmmaker changed the villains from Islamic extremists , in the novel , to Neo-Nazis ; this was done because prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks, he did not believe Arab terrorists could plausibly accomplish all that was necessary for the plot to work on film . Good production design , in fact , the CIA scenes were filmed at the actual CIA headquarters ; this was one of the times the CIA had ever done such a thing . And this was the first American film unit to enter the Kremlin , though Red Heat (1988) was the first American unit to film in Moscow . The spectacular "Super Bowl" scene takes place in Baltimore , the two teams playing in the game are portrayed by the Toronto Argonauts and the Montreal Alouettes . Real U. S. Marines along with two Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters were used for the sequence of rescuing Fowler from the wrecked motorcade . The picture has a very good support cast who gives excellent performances such as James Cromwell as President Fowler , Bruce McGill as National Security Adviser , John Beasley as General Lasseter , Philip Baker Hall as Defense Secretary , Joseph Sommer as Senator , Michael Byrne , Liev Schreiber , Alan Bates , Sven-Ole Thorsen , Ron Rifkin , Colm Feore and special mention to Ciaran Hinds as Russia President . Spectacular musical score fitting to action and suspense by maestro veteran Jerry Goldsmith . Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by John Lindley . The picture is well directed by Phil Alden Robinson , though Philip Noyce, director of previous entries, was offered to direct but turned it down and Wolfgang Petersen was also offered the chance to direct but declined.

This blockbuster is an entertaining adaptation of the novel by Tom Clancy , companion to ¨The hunt for Red October¨ by John MacTiernan with Alec Balwin and Sean Connery , followed by ¨Patriot games¨ (1992) by Philip Noyce with Harrison Ford taking over the role of Ryan from Alec Baldwin and again ¨Clear and present danger¨(1994) by Philip Noyce with Harrison Ford and Anne Archer . Then Harrison Ford dropped out of reprising the role of Jack Ryan because he and director Phillip Noyce could not agree on the script and Noyce ended up dropping out of the film as well. And finally , Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) by Kenneth Brannagh with Chris Pine as Jack Ryan , Keira Knightley and Kevin Costner .
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Another Clancy disappointment
wilsr19 June 2010
Others have pointed out - and I am fully aware of the fact - that a movie "based on.." need have little in common with the book. This is certainly very much the case in "The sum of all fears". In spades.

As a great fan of Clancy's books (well, the early ones anyway: the co-authored ones and his later titles could have been written by someone else), I appreciate the interwoven, complex subplots, the technical detail, the characterisations and the scene settings. Difficult to compress into a film but not impossible. Unfortunately, none of the Clancy movies so far has come close to doing justice to its original story.

Where to start? Well, the casting is pretty dire. Affleck is just plain wrong as Ryan, and not only because he's not Harrison Ford. He just doesn't *look* right in the part. Neither does Schreiber act or look the part of Clancy's Clark. The US President is adequately depicted by James Cromwell and Freeman is, as always, good. But the rest of the cast, I am afraid, are once again just plain wrong.

There are several scenes that are more reminiscent of a James Bond, tongue-in-cheek comedy drama than a story of this kind: again, just downright *wrong*. Nothing to do with misinterpretation of Clancy's subtleties, more to do with poor screenplay development.

In fact, poor screen writing is the hallmark of this movie: the plot, as developed, almost relies on the viewers' knowledge of Clancy's novel in order to make head or tail of what's going on even as it abandons any semblance to it. It's an odd feeling, having at the back of one's mind how the plot was originally written while at the same time watching, on screen, something entirely different - and yet superficially the same. Frankly, without having read the original I would be pushed to follow what on earth was happening, the plotting is so haphazard and disjointed. It's almost like watching a series of cameos that bear little relation to one another.

I wish I could say something positive about this movie, but I can't. Clancy's fans have been waiting in vain for a film of his novels that would do something like justice to them, and "Sum" is probably the biggest disappointment. Red October made a pretty fair hand at the task, Patriot Games too. The common factor - Harrison Ford. Yet even Ford couldn't really rescue "Clear and present danger" from an oversimplified interpretation of the book and he couldn't have saved this one either.

Come on, Clancy: let's see you get together with a first class scriptwriter and make movies of your books that does something like justice to them.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Awful... Just Awful
pluto-1112 February 2004
Someone noted that it was stupid to compare a movie with the book it is based on. Personally, I think it is natural to do so when the quality of the plot (the aspect both mediums have in common, a plot) is considerably changed between the two, either for the better or the worse. In this case, the movie chooses to change the "baddies" from Arab terrorists to Nazi's??? The one thing that makes a Clancy novel so good is its ability to project verisimilitude in its fictional scenarios - one feels like "this could happen" while reading, that is what makes it thrilling!

Why, oh why, did the film maker choose Nazi's over Arabs as the villains - the real Nazi's need walkers to get around, they are so old. The new neo Nazi is so laughable as an international threat... Rejects from Jerry Springer launching a complex plan to steal a nuclear warhead!!! Hah! If you listen to the comment track on the DVD, Clancy snorts and laughs when this topic is brought up; it is obvious what he thinks about the plausibility of Nazi terrorism. I got the impression that it was the director's wishy washy smooshy PC politics that motivated this lame change in the plot - if he had problems with the plot he should have passed over the project, not wimpify it as he did.

Finally, the choice of Affleck for Ryan! This casting choice bewilders... he seriously lacks the gravitas of either of the previous Ryan choices. They should have used Liev Schreiber who plays John Clark for the Ryan role instead - when they are on the screen together it is so obvious who one follows and takes seriously on screen, Schreiber just blows Affleck away. This lousy choice of leading man ranks up there with casting Lazenby in the Bond series.

Lame, lame, lame. I hope they just put a bullet in the series rather than use the same creative team again.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
very, very bad writing
mcgrew10 April 2004
Very, very bad writing requires supposedly bright, competent characters to act like morons to move the plot along. This movie has that in spades. Laughable bad-guys make laughable good-guys do ridiculous things in an attempt to build to a nuclear armageddon climax. Along the way, every so often somebody mouths some rockheaded thing, presumably the writer, director, actor or producer's political feelings. Just be aware that the world doesn't actually work like this, most particularly the world's nuclear arsenals. The only acting bright spot is Liev Schreiber, solid as always, but even he cannot save this turkey from Ben (Morgan Freeman is fine, of course, but mostly he just stands around looking alarmed.) Give this one a pass.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad
preppy-326 June 2002
Russia and the U.S. are on the verge of a nuclear war all masterminded by a terrorist. Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) knows, but can he convince both the governments?

There's more to it but, basically, that's the plot. As it is, it's pretty good. It may be a little disturbing, however, to some people after 9/11. If this had been released before then it would have been seen as just another Cold War movie. It's very well-done but no great shakes...the attack scenes are frightening to watch.

Affleck is very good as Ryan. He's young, good-looking, intelligent and Affleck's low-key acting fits the Ryan role like a glove. Morgan Freeman shows up (again) as a mentor to Ryan. Nothing against Freeman, but hasn't he played this role once too often? Also John Cromwell is excellent as the president (completely covering his British accent).

So, an enjoyable drama...unless 9/11 really hit you close to home. If it did, avoid this.
35 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Garbage, total sellout garbage
mikey196915 June 2003
To start with, I am a Tom Clancy fan, I have been for years. I have actually met Secret Service agents and confirmed that his info tends to be rather accurate. Jack Ryan is a great character, but this movie was junk.

When I heard this movie was coming out, I was excited. I had thoroughly enjoyed the book, and thought they couldn't possibly screw this up at all. Then I read a brief synopsis. Suddenly, in the post-9/11 era, when fanatic muslims would usually be the villain of choice, anyway, somebody decides to jump on the P.C. bandwagon, and changes the bad guys to redneck white supremacists. I was floored. I can understand rewriting certain parts of a storyline, but completely switching the polarity of the bad guys is just silly. I finally decided to see the movie when it came out on DVD, and was even more disappointed. Suddenly Jack Ryan is just starting out at the CIA as an analyst? Wasn't that back around 'Hunt For Red October'? He hasn't even gotten married yet? His wife suspecting him of cheating was a major part of the plot. How can she suspect him of cheating if she hasn't even married him yet? This story takes place AFTER 'Clear and Present Danger', yet we have all these inconsistencies? I just can't understand why this movie got such a high rating in the first place... To me, this was a sellout from the beginning, and I can't believe Clancy gave his blessing on this. If he felt that Harrison Ford was getting too old, there was much more he could have done, and still saved the integrity of the series. Ben Affleck could play a late-twenties/early-thirties hero with no problem, but instead we get an obvious 'money-grab' by hiring the young actor and playing the story to a younger crowd. Who cares that Jack Ryan met 'Mr. Clark' ages ago, and he and Ding Chavez are actually Ryan's bodyguards by this point? And by the way, how come Jack Ryan's 'wireless internet' PDA was working after 1: a nuclear blast that would have most likely caused an EMP blast knocking out such silly things as cell-phone towers?, and 2: How was it connecting to the internet with no wireless plug in card or anything to make an ordinary PDA bluetooth compatible? Personally, I would give this movie a 1.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even Video Won't Help
mike941094 July 2002
Geez, this thing is a total snoozer. Too many flaws and the storyline is rather ridiculous. In one scene, when the nuclear bomb goes off, we see Ben Affleck's love-interest blown away only to return a few moments later absolutely flawless helping the victims around her (she is a nurse or a doctor, I can't remember this was such a bad film). The victims, of course, are burnt to a crisp, writhing, dying, screaming, pleading but she is "Holly Go Lightly" barking off orders to other nurses.

And that's just one of the many flaws in this ridiculous film. Baltimore is blown up and we all know this country would freak out over any city being nuked but not here. It just seems like an afterthought - "Oh yeah, we can't go to Baltimore..." James Cromwell (the farmer guy Babe the talking pig pictures) badly plays our U.S. President (heads up here: they didn't go for a George Dubya lookalike even though Cromwell's character fits the Dubya personality perfectly) but what is so dumb is that Ben Affleck literally takes over the presidency with only we the viewer seeing him do it. The film's director couldn't really let the world know that Ben was in control of the free world. And then there's the guy who knows and sees everything at all times and who follows us all the way to the end of the film and even suprises Ben & lover with a wedding gift before they've even set the wedding date. Give us all a BREAK! :-(

Just an awful film. Avoid it even when it comes out on video.

P.S. for those of you wondering whether or not Ben Affleck provides his trademarked tear rolling down the cheek from his one crying eye - he doesn't do it in this film. (Thank GOD!)
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you've read the book, prepare to vomit.
rickert7 May 2002
Hunt For Red October is still the only film of a Clancy novel that has remained remotely faithful to the original. The very things that make the books popular (multiple dense story lines) make them impossible for the most part to film. The Sum Of All Fears is the latest example of this. They pretty much took the title of the film and a couple of scenes, names of characters, and made a different film. Setting it in the present doesn't help, changing Arab terrorsts to neo nazi's is completely ridiculous, taking the family aspect out of Jack Ryan's character diminishes his depth. Clancy is somewhere counting the dollars, and I know that previously (Patriot Games) he has refused to let them use his name in advertising, but dang. Affleck's acting is adequate, but he will never be able to get past the fact that he's Ben Affleck. He has plenty of charisma, but none of the intelligence and depth of a Ford or Alec Baldwin. Whenever he tries to be intense, it's the same facial moves and vocal moves that he's used in stuff like Mallrats. Ah well. Luckily it was a free preview. Didn't have to waste any money.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
i guess the book doesn't have anything to do with this......
jimakros14 July 2010
I'm not a Tom Clancy fan but his books made big money and i guess he must be doing something right.I never read any of his books but i've seen all the Jack Ryan movies and i like all other 3 of them,this one is pretty bad.The plot is totally off the wall,and since it must be similar in the book ,i guess he managed to explain things in some rational manner in the book that Hollywood didn't care to transfer to the movie.As it is,you get the impression this was written by some megalomaniac screenwriter who was so caught up in the importance of his story that didn't care about anything that has to do with basic common sense.All that matters in this story is that everything can and will go wrong,and that the US and Russia will be unable to do anything about it without the help of Mr.Ryan. SPOILERS-When you have a movie where a nuclear bomb explodes in Baltimore and then you have Mr.Ryan say,its not that bad ,it was a rather small bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!,then you know you are in trouble.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This doesn't work--should have probably just blown more stuff up.
carbuff11 May 2015
Really disappointing.

Acting was really stiff and unconvincing (although I never expect much from Ben Affleck who is always wooden and stilted like he just swallowed a bottle of Valium--I was counting on the rest of the movie to carry Affleck).

I've never been a Tom Clancy fan, and, as expected, the plot was not very believable, but unbelievable plots can still work well if the right elements of the rest of the movie come together properly. Unfortunately, that was not the case here. For instance, there was absolutely no chemistry between the "love interests"--Affleck and whoever she was. Argon and Neon would make a better matched couple.

This movie just dragged on and on (and on) and could not sustainably build suspense. In this case, it would have helped a lot if had just Michael Bay'ed it and blew up more stuff--that might have given me a halfway decent shot at remaining conscious during this snoozefest. Again, really, really disappointing.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie was TERRIBLE!!!!
Roxie12853 June 2002
I read the book "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clncy and it was amazing!! It was definitely one of my favorite books. Tom Clancy is an amazing author and I love to read his work. So I was obviously appalled by the fact that Tom Clancy would allow this terrible movie to carry the same title as his amazing novel. The movie did not go by the book at all. I mean, Jack Ryan was married with two children and the Deputy Director of the CIA in the book and Morgan Freemans characters name was Marcus. They couldn't even keep simple facts like that in the movie. John Clark was Jack Ryans driver and close friend, not some man Ryan went to Russia to assist. President Fowler did not have a wife and was actually having an affair with his National Security Advisor Liz Elliott in the book. There was no mention of the Vatican Treay or of the trade problems with Japan. Details suc as this defined his excellent novel and Hollywood took it and destroyed it. Even if I had not read the book, I still would have thought it was a terrible movie. It was hard to follow and just overall the worst movie I have ever seen. I am a HUGE fan of Ben Afflect, but even he could not save the movie. I also do not think that he was the best choice to replace Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan. I enjoy reading Tom Clancy novels and I hope that next time a movie is made based on a Tom Clancy book that it is based more closely to the book. Tom Clancy is very creative and while I would NOT RECOMMEND any one see the movie, I would recommend the read the book. But then again, they always say the the book is always a million times better than the book.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
See Ben Affleck suck as Jack Ryan
Kenneth_Loring17 July 2006
The biggest flaw this movie had was the fact that it changed the leading man to the horribly inferior Ben Affleck, who rejects this movie like a body rejects can organ. He totally plays the role as though he is more like he is on heavy doses of Thorazine. In other words he puts nothing of himself into the role of Jack Ryan at all. Ben Affleck is a horrible Jack Ryan. He is completely lifeless and devoid of the passion displayed by far better actors in the role of Ryan. The other problem with this movie is that the story is played far more scary then exciting, which makes it not the least bit entertaining. Unfortunately, the movie is also at a loss for necessary drama. Sum of all fears tried desperately to be a good movie, but it's not even a half-way decent one. You can thank Ben Affleck for not being able to camouflage himself into the role for that.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sum of all... Blahs...!
junklpr14 January 2011
... Ben Aflack? Are you kidding? What an insult to Mr. Clancy's creativity and the legacy of Harrison Ford. At least pick an actor who possesses a modicum of acting ability... Almost anyone else... Well, except Tom Cruz, of course! Now I must write more. The movie is on my TV right now. And I would rather be writing this review. If I write any more, this will become as boring as the movie. But, we must fit the guidelines. Again... Ben Aflack? Who was the casting director? I think I have bored all of you almost as much as the movie will. So, now you have no need to suffer through watching Mr. Aflack say lines or wasting time enduring this disappointing movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wake me when it is over
elderfarr27 May 2009
This was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I have no desire to read the book either because I am not into this kind of stuff but my brother in law told me it was one of the best movies I would ever see so I gave it a try. I was so bored I am surprised I even got through it. It is slow moving and the climax is very disappointing. This movie was a waste of time. I bought it at a pawn shop for $2.50. I will have to stick it in a yard sale and get rid of this worthless movie. I thought there would be some good exciting scenes but the whole movie was just boring. There is never an entertaining part in the whole movie. If this movie is entertaining to some I would like to know how so.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
the only good thing I can say about Ben Afleck is...
colan16 December 2008
Nobody can act like Ben Afleck like Ben Afleck can. I mean, as far as acting like a wooden emotionless awful actor as Ben Afleck is, nobody can act as good (or bad I guess depending how you look at it) as Ben Afleck.

But just making a casting choice of putting one of the worst actors of our times with the most hype of Ben Afleck acting like Ben Afleck (kinda the opposite of how Jack Ryan would be) the rest of the movie is also full of just horrible inaccuracies and goes so far from the book from whence it was adapted, the even call it part of the series is as laughable as calling say Space Balls part of the Star Wars series, only Space Balls was almost good, it certainly had better acting than, say, Ben Afleck.

Which it's all a shame, it's clearly a big budget piece, the backdrops and some of the actors excepting the stereotypical, laughably bad Neo Nazis which, what a stupid choice to do considering the book's bad guys would be much more relevant in todays world (what the heck was Hollywood thinking?!?), you could feel the money being dropped into this clunker. Granted, it's not 100% laughably bad like, say, most movies Matthew McConaughey is in lately, say the uberly so bad even the actors were laughing at their lines "Sahara," I mean, that's a steaming pile of a movie there were it reeks of bad. This movie reeked of trying to be good but with a "leading man" (sic) choice like weak pathetic Afleck, then changing the story from the book, then implausibles about nukes and radiation, this flick devolved into one big "you've got to kidding me fest."

I'd give this movie a zero except the explosion and some of the hardware and aircraft looked cool, that and sadly IMDb doesn't, but should, allow zeros, and should go one step further and automatically give any movie Ben Afleck is in a zero.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed