The Sum of All Fears Review
by Mark R. Leeper (markrleeper AT yahoo DOT com)June 5th, 2002
THE SUM OF ALL FEARS
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Tom Clancy's mammoth novel about nuclear
terrorism comes to the screen. This is probably the
least complex of the Ryan films to date, but it is the most tense and dramatic. SUM is a whirlwind of a film with some all too possible nightmare scenarios of
nuclear terrorism. The more than usually James-Bond-
like counter-tactics of Jack Ryan are neither fully
convincing nor reassuring. Rating: 7 (0 to 10),
+2 (-4 to +4). I will avoid major spoilers making this a less informative review than it might be. There are some cryptic minor spoilers.
We are starting our fifth decade of the James Bond films, the first film series about intelligence and spies (with the possible exception of the Universal Sherlock Holmes films). Bond, however, is not the most satisfying main character because he never fails and only in DR. NO and one quick sequence of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE does his self-confidence ever seem to flag. Some viewers want more realistic scenarios. The super-villains who want to unilaterally start wars and cataclysms were not seriously in evidence in the real world until the 21st century. For more believable spies and scenarios it seemed at the time one had to turn to Harry Palmer, George Smiley, and eventually Jack Ryan.
Actually the fourth Jack Ryan film, THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, superficially has a lot of similarities to a James Bond sort of story. One does not have to look very hard to find in the plot surprising parallels to aspects of the films THUNDERBALL and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME as well as the non-Bond film BLACK SUNDAY. The villain's strategy may be borrowed from S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and the smart Siamese Fighting Fish in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. But it would be just as easy to miss these resemblances because the style of a Jack Ryan story is so different. The Clancy stories have a great deal of convincing detail about American intelligence and the military. The new film has a super-villain whose plan is right out of a Bond film, but he is shown with the verisimilitude of a Clancy character. And probably for the first time we are seeing it with the sadder but wiser knowledge that such people really do exist.
Our story opens in 1973 Yom Kippur War with an Israeli plane bearing one nuclear bomb, just in case it is needed. The plane is shot down over Syria, however, and breaks up in the air. In 2002 a scavenging junk dealer finds the wreckage of the plane and the bomb. Meanwhile Jack Ryan is now the new analyst at the CIA. Ryan new at the CIA? Well, in a sense they are starting the series over with a younger Jack Ryan. Alec Baldwin played Ryan once in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER; Harrison Ford did it twice in PATRIOT GAMES and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Now Ben Affleck assays the role. He may have been chosen for reasons other than that he exhibits Jack Ryan qualities. Actually, he seems to be a bit young to have the respect that he gets from foreign dignitaries. He seems to have been chosen to give a youthful image to the teen audience who does not like their heroes too well-aged. Also, Affleck can probably play the role for a good long time before he looks too old for the part. Hopefully by then he will have better grown into the role.
At the CIA Ryan is the precocious and headstrong young kid with ideas of his own who wins grudging admiration from his bemused boss and mentor Bill Cabot (Morgan Freeman). Meanwhile back in Syria our junk dealer is selling his bomb to a neo-Fascist who has some good ideas how to use it. (I am told that in the book it is NOT a neo-Fascist, but neo-Fascists are unlikely to complain if they are made the villains in this sort of film. In fact, even if using them somewhat degrades the logic of the story they probably rather enjoy being made the baddies. The Middle East connection has been minimized because the subject matter was probably considered already topical enough.)
Meanwhile in Russia a new president, Alexander Nemerov (Ciaran Hinds), has come to power and is responsible for a chemical attack in Chechnya. Ryan rather likes Nemerov and guesses that Nemerov's taking responsibility for the atrocity is political rather than factual. Nobody at the CIA or on the President's staff agrees.
I assume that in the rather long novel, all these things happen a bit less simultaneously. However, after this events start happening even faster and even faster. If you think that was bad, from this point on it's just one damn thing after another. But only at the end do things boil over the top of plausibility. Jack Ryan has to do some fancy and complex detective work if he is going to avert a major disaster.
The script by Paul Attanasio (QUIZ SHOW and SPHERE) and Daniel Pyne (PACIFIC HEIGHTS) is fast-paced, but rather than being exciting, it turns up extremely dark and grim. One novelty scene involving cell phones seems borrowed almost directly from THE SEIGE. The Jerry Goldsmith score features some decent choral pieces and does its job, but the musical centerpiece is not original and will already be familiar to opera fans. It is Puccini's exquisite "Nessun Dorma" from TURANDOT. The villain may be an inhuman slimeball, but he surely has good taste in music. I wonder what they are saying by making him an opera fan?
Morgan Freeman always adds a touch of dignity to any role he takes. Sadly, everything else he does for this role he also does for any role he takes. I have mixed feelings about him as an actor since I love this character he plays, but he plays it in every single film he is in. Do you have any other personalities inside you, Mr. Freeman? James Cromwell takes the role of the President with sufficient dignity if not much grace. Liev Schreiber plays the closest thing to an action operative in this film. I do not think of him as an action actor so it is a pleasure seeing this from him. Philip Baker Hall, like Freeman, always plays the same great character in every film, but has not done it so frequently as Freeman so it is a little more
acceptable.
This is an exciting film but don't expect to leave the theater in an up mood. THE SUM OF ALL FEARS might be a little more fun if a little less of it was so possible and even likely. The scariest parts of the film are probably the reminders of what you have learned about the world in the last twelve months. I rate THE SUM OF ALL FEARS a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
[email protected] Copyright 2002 Mark R. Leeper
More on 'The Sum of All Fears'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
