Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Some Thoughts atter Watching THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (2002)

One of the last movies Ben Affleck made before his hiatus in J-Land was 2002's THE SUM OF ALL FEARS based loosely on the book by Tom Clancy. This past Sunday, after treating our moms to Ayhan's Shish Kebab, Henry, my cousin Alan, and I screened the DVD.

Alan asked a fair amount of questions about how the movie compared to the book. My frequent answer was "None of this happened in the book," and to me it was a good thing. THE SUM OF ALL FEARS is the longest and worst Clancy book I've read, about Arab terrorists detonating a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl.

Some Clancy fans on IMdb strained to reconcile the Harrison Ford movie CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER with this one. Good luck. I'm well past wanting movies to be faithful to books. I say do what works best for a movie. In the case of the Ryan franchise, the best thing to do was "retcon" Ryan (That's retroactive continuity for non-comics fans). In SUM, Ryan has been with CIA for fourteen months when the Russian president dies and is replaced by someone Ryan has researched for a paper.

Ryan goes to Russia on an American weapons inspection tour and discovers three Russian nuclear scientists are missing. He teams with John Clark (played superbly by Liev Schreiber)--called back into the field from a desk job--to locate the scientists and find out what they've been doing.

In short, all the best Clancy movie elements are here: the two superpowers grappling while spies on both sides keep the back channels open, Ryan's relationship with a father figure (Morgan Freeman in a James Earl Jones-esque role), his comparison with CIA field personnel (the professional Clark), all balanced with the everyman's desire to make a love relationship work.

I give it three out of four stars.

(Incidentally, I haven't read a Clancy book since DEBT OF HONOR, in which every link in the president's chain of succession is killed, allowing Ryan to step in, no doubt something Clancy can only dream of doing.)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

A couple of quick comments, G:

1) This new fancy comment system apparently lets me either post anonymously, or else sign up for this blogger system deal. Pretty lame not to have an in-between option, if you ask me....

2) I still can't get over how you can endorse this movie. Maybe it had the right elements, but with a weak script and weak acting (how Affleck ever made it in front of a camera is a total mystery to me), I thought this was one of the worst action movies I've seen in recent years, and certainly the weakest Clancy adaptation.

--matt

Gerald So said...

I agree on the lack of an in-between signing option, but it looks smoother with the new template, and my previous service sometimes didn't even load up.

About the Clancy movies, I found Ford passable. Clancy's plots always have to be changed somewhat--except for Red October--so as not to bore the audience. Red October is the best to my mind. Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger were okay. Ford was solid as I said, but I was tired of him in the role when SUM rolled around. I was more prepared to see Affleck as Ryan than most. Clark has always been my guy, and Schreiber gave him a good showing. There's my reason to watch and enjoy right there.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm posting anonymously because I'm over at LiveJournal, so. I have to lamely admit I've seen THE SUM OF ALL FEARS more than ten times. Bordering on twenty, probably.

I think Affleck is laughable, whassername as his girlfriend isn't much, but the rest of the cast is really superb (RIP Alan Bates!), and I think the direction is pretty fierce in spots.

But the reason I watch it again and again: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SCHREIBER. Seriously my favorite actor of all time. And it's was gratifying to see him with Colm Feore, who plays the weapons dealer, again, after Colm played Claudius to Liev's Hamlet at the Public Theater in 1999. Ah, fond memories. I know I have the poster from that production around here somewhere....

-christine