Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002
Movie Review: The Sum of All Fears
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
I just got back from seeing "The Sum of All Fears." I thought it was a
pretty good plot thriller, and I thought Ben Affleck was good as a young
Jack Ryan. For some reason it wasn't as scary as the novel (though I can't
remember if I read all of it or not) -- perhaps it has something to do with
the fact that a massive attack has occurred on American soil.
The atom bomb explosion in the movie wasn't as jarring as I thought it
would be, primarily because they didn't actually show the explosion and not
much of the aftermath.
And I don't think it makes much difference that the terrorists presented in
the movie were neo-Nazis rather than Muslim fundamentalists because the
movie didn't go much into motivation aside from stating the terrorists
wanted the USA and the Russians to destroy one another so the terrorist
gang could take over the world. In other words, since the conflict wasn't
presented in terms of ideologies, it doesn't really matter who was behind
it. Of course, it would have been a better drama had the ideologies been
better presented, but I've stopped expecting that in movies.
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:33:02 -0400
Movie Review: The Sum of All Fears
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
> From Dean M. Sandin
>
> Absent last year's atrocities, I suppose that this
> same movie might have been just another liberal-
> Hollywood cop-out seeking to avoid hurting
> anybody's feelings. *Now* though -- why isn't the
> throwing of the Islamic element out, and the
> substituting of a truly stupid total fantasy of Nazi-
> like South Africans of all things, nothing less than a
> cowardly cop-out -- hell, a corrupt blank-out -- in
> today's circumstances?
I agree with this assessment of the (possible) motivation of the changing
of the terrorist group involved. The only reason I say "possible" is that
Tom Clancy was directly involved in the making of the movie, and I don't
think he is such a coward or so corrupt. But maybe he sold the rights to
the movie and didn't have much editorial say (I believe there was some
controversy along those lines regarding the last Clancy book turned into a
movie).
However, I was judging the movie as the movie and not trying to compare it
to the novel (which was certainly better); nor was I judging it according
to how I thought it might have been or ought to have been. In short, yes
the movie could have been much better had they followed the original plot;
in the hands of a great director it could even have been a great movie. As
it was, such potential was reduced to the level of "Die Hard," which I did
enjoy for what it was, though I certainly wouldn't say it was a great drama.
Regarding the neo-Nazi terrorists partaking in fine wines, high-priced
cigars, and opera, I simply saw this as part of their pretentiousness. And
didn't Hitler do the same thing, all the while knowing he was treating a
large population of human beings living in Germany as so many cattle ready
for the slaughter?
