The Sum Of All Fears Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
27,000 Nuclear Weapons. One Is Missing.
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.
| Ben Affleck | Jack Ryan |
| Morgan Freeman | DCI William Cabot |
| James Cromwell | President Robert 'Bob' Fowler |
| Ken Jenkins | Admiral Pollack |
| Liev Schreiber | John Clark |
| Bruce McGill | National Security Advisor Gene Revell |
| John Beasley | General Lasseter |
| Russell Bobbitt | Israeli Pilot |
| Philip Baker Hall | Defense Secretary David Becker |
| Al Vandecruys | US STRATCOM Colonel |
| Richard Cohee | Mt. Weather General |
| Philip Pretten | President's Military Aide |
| Alison Darcy | Fowler's Aide |
| Richard Marner | President Zorkin |
| Ostap Soroka | Zorkin's Translator |
| Phil Alden Robinson |
6.40 out of 10 (23289 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Borrow it from someone to waste your time
posted on 21 Aug 2009I watched this movie last night, and thought it was ok. But, after reading the first few comments today I found myself feeling annoyed and put-out that I someone else wasted their money on this movie for me.Destroying the Jack Ryan character in favour of having a young popular good-looking jock play it was a mistake. I can't even overcome my disappointment by attempting to view the character as a kind of archetype of Clancy heroes. Affleck's characterization of Jack Ryan as a weak, simpering, mewling post-adolescent was a horrible dissolution of the character I'd come to expect and certainly didn't even touch Ford's protrayal despite its insipidness when compared to Baldwin's portrayal.In my mind Clancy allowed his creation to be betrayed.Freeman definitely puts the boots to the other actors (once again!) and manages to walk away from the film without any egg on his face. I don't know how he does it, but if for nothing else this ability he must be commended on. After all, this is a man who was capable of finding work after being in a Kevin Costner production.Liev Schrieber also does a phenomenal job in playing a Clancy character the way it was meant to be instead of some waffling new-age commando.BTW - does anyone know where I can get a cell-phone, wireless PDA and the supporting commercial infrastructure that can resist the EMP of a nuclear blast? Or perhaps glass that doesn't shred bodies to mince when shattered by a blast wave?At least Paramount won't have to worry about this movie being pirated. I can't imagine who would want to waste the drive space.
Very Good...But Frighteningly Realistic
posted on 03 Aug 2009The Sum Of All Fears is a very good movie about a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city. It's a great action movie full of intrigue but at the same time it is frighteningly realistic.Before the tragic terrorist attacks last September 11th this film would have seemed like pure fiction but in this post-September 11th world, it is very realistic.In a way, I think a lot of films dealing with this theme are very useful to the real world. This type of film shows governments what can happen in such events and I hope that this type of movie encourages governments to think more about how to deal with the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (SPOILERS AHEAD)Unlike most films of this type, the nuclear device is actually detonated in Baltimore and obviously, it causes huge loss of life. The American government are quick to blame the Russian government and soon after both countries are heading for nuclear destruction. The actual bomb that is detonated is actually an American-made bomb and this is quite a scary aspect. The actors and actresses play their parts very well and you can feel the tension along with them. Whilst watching this movie, I felt like I was watching a real life news event. I guess, the fact that this film is within the realms of reality added to the tension.But all in all, it was a great movie and once again, I think these films do a good job in showing the world the possible consequences of events like this and how to prevent them. This was a very good film.
Flawed, but a good effort
posted on 01 Aug 2009I've been putting off seeing this film, as I was afraid I would be disappointed. Luckily, I wasn't.Ben Affleck is convincing in the role of the 'accidental hero' Ryan - you never get the feeling that he's setting out to be a hero, just that he's in the right place at the right time to make a difference, and that he's just doing what he can.The first half of the film is interesting - we see enough of the Bomb Plot to know what's going on, without going into the intricate details that so often slow the books down. It's interesting seeing the little snippets we get here and there from the good guys POV. There's a real humanity to Ryan (being teased by his boss, looked down on by the bigwigs), as well as a sense of being caught up in events he can't really control. This is good.The second half of the film is a lot tenser. The handling of the detonation was good - no grisly, slow-motion shots of people being blown apart, just focusing on the main characters. The aftermath was perhaps a little overdone (Ryan driving through the flaming city came out of nowhere - it was rather offputting), but luckily it didn't last long, and soon enough we were into a tense potboiler. The handling of the growing crises was believable - given what we knew about the US and Russian Presidents, each decision was true to character, and it was easy to see each move being misinterpreted on the other side. Eminently believable.The only major problem I had with the crisis at the end was the Backfire attack on the US Carrier. In the book, this role was filled by tanks stationed in Berlin, a situation which obviously had to be rectified for the film. However, the attack was simply unbelievable - the US Navy has practiced this exact scenario too often for them to be taken so completely off-guard, especially after what had just happened in Baltimore. Still, it looked good.I was very pleased not to see rampant Americanism running through the film. It could so easily have become "America good, being reasonable, Russia bad, being nasty", but if anything, Russia was the defender, and America the aggressor. What could easily have become overbearing became tension-building instead.I can't rate this 10/10, because it wasn't perfect, but I'd say it rates a solid 8.
Forget the Sensitivity Nonsense -- Go See It!
posted on 30 Jul 2009All these critics who keep harping on the sensitivity issue obviously think that Americans are a bunch of whining wimps. Perhaps they don't want the public to see a film where the President is strong, determined, and decisive as well as a war veteran (horror of horrors, a Marine!)and the CIA doing a good job. The Sum of All Fears reminded me of the excellent film Thirteen Days and the Cuban missile crisis. The film also reinforces the need for America to be vigilant and to take terrorism seriously. Perhaps the critics don't like that as well. They don't seem to think that Americans need to be reminded that something worse than 9-11 could happen if we aren't vigilant.
Our enemies would like nothing more than to unleash a nuclear or biological weapon upon one of our cities and I am sure all their minds and efforts are bent on doing so. Send Hollywood the signal that we need more films like this. Hollywood needs to react to the events of 9-11 like they did after Pearl Harbor. Go see the film!
Ben Affleck saves the world
posted on 28 Jul 2009I found this to be an enjoyable flick. It is slow getting started, but once it gets up to speed, it really gets moving. This is not a sock-em-up action film, but rather a political chess game-style thriller. And thrill it does. As you go deeper into the film, you watch breathlessly, wondering just how close these people will come to blowing up the world before the one man with the truth (Affleck's Jack Ryan)can overcome obstacles in his way deliver the truth to the people who REALLY need to hear it.Morgan Freeman is easily the top choice for best performance as Mr Cabot, the CIA Director. It's when he finally gets teamed up with Affleck's Ryan that the picture gets moving. As for Ben Affleck, he plays Jack Ryan as if he were Ben Affleck. To put it another way: If someone were to make a movie called "The Ben Affleck Story", Ben Affleck would be the ideal actor to play the lead. Whether or not you think he did a good job playing Ryan depends greatly on whether or not you like Ben Affleck. The president and the balance of his cabinet are played by some of the biggest character actors in Hollywood. James Cromwell, Ron Rifkin, Bruce McGill, and the guy who played the game show host in "Magnolia"; they all put on fine performances. Liev Schreiber offers up quite the cool cat as John Clark (I believe they are preparing a movie for Rainbow Six so they can spin Clark off into his own series).As to the re-vamping of the story to make Ryan a much younger man, I thought it worked well. The problem with keeping Ford as the lead is the man is in his 60s now, and the only way to have kept him believable throughout the book series would have been to make them all consecutively, and that wasn't going to happen.Also, I think that some of the criticisms levelled at this movie are unfounded. Even withstanding the 9/11 terror attacks, this movie presents a realistic scenario.At any rate, if you enjoy taut political thrillers, go see this movie.I gave it 7/10
Flat Unexciting
posted on 24 Jul 2009I found this to be a flat unexciting movie b/c I was never convinced of the drama. While Ben Aflick did a good job of acting he failed to convince me of the immediacy of the moment. Morgan Freeman was convincing as the DCI, but his part wasn't large enough to carry the whole movie.The cast was mostly weak b/c of the casting of the President and his staff. 6/10- Zafoid
poor poor poor
posted on 20 Jul 2009Having read and heard so many great reviews about this film, I threw away my unfounded skepticism about the film being terrible and viewed it. It was horrible. Three quarters through the movie it occurred to me that I didn't care about any of the characters at all. Their development was poor, Ben Afleck wasn't exactly the greatest man for the job, and it seemed like a series of jumbled events were just thrown onto film. I don't know what else to say about it, just save yourself two hours of your life and stay away from this awful film.
Wonderful movie
posted on 18 Jul 2009This is a simple review: I love this movie. The acting in it is top of the line; the way it was directed was amazing... and it was a film filmed with many one liners - Ben Affleck spoke not only English but Russian and Ukrainian in the same film.That one scene with Baltimore - is amazing for the simple fact that you are unaware that the explosion would happen at that very moment.I can't wait to see Ben star in more Ryan movies.The only thing that I found a little stray is that I'm sure that outside of Baltimore does not look like California and probably isn't sandy before the blast...9/10
BEST MOVIE THIS YEAR!!!!!!
posted on 18 Jul 2009I thought that this movie was terrific from start to finish.... I havent seen any other Jack Ryan movies/prequals..... but this one was awesome.... a definite 10!!! I cant wait for the DVD so that I can purchase it... There was all the elements of a well thought script. I might add it makes you think about life, love and choices.
pure US Propaganda crap
posted on 14 Jul 2009Contains Spoiler In previous comments, I see others say how they can't believe this movie was made to soon after Sept. 11th. I think that this is the perfect movie to make after Sept. 11th because it allows the viewer to regain hope in our government and its foreign policy. At the very least, we can hope for some historian like Ben Affleck to save us. That being said, this movie was terrible. It was clearly directed and influenced by those officials that want the hope in our government and economy to be restored. It had no substance at all however, and seems to be another method of manipulation.. the likes we haven't seen since "Hitler Youth Quex" of WWII Germany. Ben Affleck was almost laughably bad and unbelievable in his role. Overall the story was boring and nothing much happened until the bomb finally went off. Even then, I found myself laughing as we see Affleck running in slow motion with flames in the background. The highlight of the movie for me was getting a chance to see Philip Baker Hall in another role. I hadn't seen him in anything since Magnolia, and though his role was very minor and had little speaking lines.. I at least am glad to see that he is getting work. I guess I can't say anything to prevent anyone from going to the movie however... it is unfortunately the number one movie right now, however next time a Tom Clancy movie comes out, I'll be more wary about whether the messages within the screenplay are from his writing, or from what big brother just wants us to hear.
"Is that all there is to a nuclear holocaust?"
posted on 14 Jul 2009"If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing; let's break out the booze, & have a ball, if that's all there is..."(I figure some readers may not be old enough to recall that tune.)A few years ago there was a George Clooney flick called "The Peacemaker" that had a nuke destroying a city, I think somewhere in Russia. The nuking was basically glossed over, maybe partly due to budget but chiefly, it seemed, 'cause it happened early on & wasn't really "the point." Lots of other stuff happened afterwards, but I kept wondering "Well gee whiz, what about that city that got nuked? Isn't that kinda major?" In this movie a city also gets nuked, specifically Baltimore--well okay, really it's Montreal, but leave us not quibble---& it's also basically glossed over but this time it's very much "the point." I'm spilling no beans here: the trailer shows us cars getting blown off the road by the shock wave etc. The more I think about how this was depicted, the more annoyed I get.Ironically, this movie about a fictional disaster that was made before the real disaster of nine-eleven may get saved by the latter, because before nine-eleven, who could've remotely predicted how the country would react to hijackers flying airplanes into buildings? Yet now, 8 & a half months later, the mop-up is ceremoniously over (C-SPAN, god bless 'm, carried it live) & most of us are "getting on with our lives." So we dealt with that. So we can see this movie & think "Yeah, we could deal with this too." AND YET there's a universe of difference between the events of nine-eleven, as bad as they were, & a nuke (even if it's "low-yield") going off in a city. But you'd never guess that just from watching this movie.THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE MAY WANT TO SKIP AHEAD UNTIL THEY SEE CAPITAL LETTERS AGAIN....Not that I'm deliberately "spoiling" anything, but still. We don't actually "see" Baltimore get nuked; we see ancillary damage from far away, we see the famous cloud, later we see carefully edited medium-close shots of burning cars, MASH-type hospital tents, airborne debris etc. Maybe this was partly budgetary, although they seem to've pumped a crapload of money into this flick; maybe it was "artistic" less-is-more etc. That's not my chief problem with it. It's how something so unprecedented & apocalyptic gets turned into something so perfunctory & plotdriven. After the nuking, we see Affleck running around like Mannix or some other TV private eye, we see guys on Air Force One arguing, & we see guys in the Kremlin arguing. What's the effect on the whole country? What's the mood in the street, or on talk-radio, or in Congress? Does martial law get imposed? How 'bout all the corpses, all the wounded, all the families, all the residents of the city, how does the place even function? None of this gets delved into, because in the movie it doesn't matter. The nuking of an American city becomes merely a means to a story end. It's like another James Bond flick. The obligatory happy-ending with Affleck & his honey on a blanket is not just nauseating, it's insulting. "Hey honey, let's go celebrate our engagement tonight, I know lots of great places that WEREN'T recently destroyed by an atomic blast....." Oh by the way, we're informed the radiation all conveniently blew out to sea, so THAT'S not even an issue. Gee whiz, makes ya wonder what those wimpy Japanese were complaining about all those years, didn't they sell lots of cars & TVs afterwards???.....OKAY, IT'S 'SAFE' TO READ AGAIN NOW IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE.Why do I dwell on this? 'Cause but for the nuking, this would just be another stupid thriller, & not even an intelligently executed stupid thriller. Start with the villains---neo-Nazis???? Jeezus, not AGAIN???? Didn't we already kill Laurence Olivier in "Marathon Man" years ago? The movie doesn't even follow through on its own goofy premise: we see a handful of Europeans sitting around in a hotel room like the evil conspiracy guys in the "X-Files" movie, only instead of Armin Mueller-Stahl it's Alan Bates with an accent, chortling how fascists all over the world can now work together via the Internet etc., yet they're hatching a plot that would result in millions of Americans & Russians being killed, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO INCLUDE ALL THE NEO-FASCISTS IN THOSE COUNTRIES, WOULDN'T IT, SO I GUESS IT'S A PRETTY STUPID PLAN, ISN'T IT. Nuclear war between America & Russia would render Europe largely uninhabitable, & make it hard to get those cigarettes the bad guys're constantly smoking, & the really nice cars they drive, & the vintage wine they drink. Umpteen other scenes strain credulity horrendously, e.g. when the cloak-&-dagger guy single-handedly invades the Ukraine, etc. etc. Reminds me what Stanley Kauffmann wrote about the "corruption of realism" in movies---they get the trappings down to a T, while asking us to swallow these whoppers.This could've been a fun movie or a harrowing one, could've been "Fail Safe" or "Dr Strangelove," but it ultimately wants to be a geopolitical "Field of Dreams" without a lead even as charismatic as Kevin Costner to carry it off. I don't even care about previous Jack Ryan movies, I haven't read Clancy's books, I'd rather just watch C-SPAN, & I did enjoy the movie's reference to it. But darn it, they go to so much trouble about Detail & in the supposed Super Bowl game, the 2 teams are wearing clearly non-NFL insignia. Why not just have the announcer speak French while they were at it?Also enjoyed Cromwell's "nuke-ya-lur," a little dig at Bush I presume.
no Ford=no good
posted on 04 Jul 2009For the first hour there is almost no action at all which isn't necessary a bad thing, it has a fairly intelligent build up that reminds you of The West Wing, then in the last part all hell breaks loose which turns it into a different kind of film altogether. I'm not sure it totally works but it's watchable stuff. But what definitely didn't work for me was Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, he's good-looking, he's likable but he's no Harrison Ford, he hasn't got the charisma to play a role like that, unlike Matt Damon who is excellent as Jason Bourne. If Harrison Ford had played Jack Ryan again this would have been a far better film.(6/10)NB.The man playing the President is James Cromwell and he was born in Los Angeles.
One word "sums" this movie up....awful!
posted on 04 Jul 2009I loved "Clear and Present Danger", "Patriot Games" and "Hunt for Red October", so I figured I'd like this one. Oh, how wrong could I be!You would have thought they would have spent a little money on LIGHTING!! So many parts of the movie are so dark, you can't tell what's going on!And the plot, if that's what you can call it. Way too jumbled to make any sense.The Feds should start requiring movies to open with the lead actor/actress looking into the camera and tell us if we are about to waste 3 hours of our life watching crap!There are many worse movies out there, but this movie is one to miss.I give it .13 stars out of 4!
Sum or All of Affleck?
posted on 30 Jun 2009Great movie for fans of Ben Affleck. We see Ben in bed with a woman, Ben all scruffy going to work at the CIA, Ben in a suitjacket that doesn't fit him, Ben in a big duffle coat, Ben with that misty look when being told a lie by the Soviet president, Ben injured in a wreck, Ben running quickly through a fiery disaster scene, Ben fighting some guy who wants to choke him, Ben being smart, Ben being brash, and even Ben wearing a T-shirt and having a pleasant picnic. SPOILERS AHEAD** Aside from Ben running around being all cute and action-adventure, what the hell is this picture about??? Questions arise:
Why does he need to go to the loading dock to see the signature? Why would he care? If someone has blown up the city with a bomb, do you really need to see the packing slip? And what are those canisters laying on the floor at the dock supposed to be? Were those people killed with hairspray? Who are these evil masterminds and does any of it matter? And instead of blowing people up, couldn't they just wait for the Americans to smoke the cigarettes and die of cancer? And what's with the Nazi insignia on the inside of that guy's watch? Do they give you a gold watch if you've been a Nazi for 25 years or what? What do they give you after 30 years? How long till you're vested in the Nazi pension plan? And did you notice that Ben's girlfriend and the Soviet President's wife are wearing the same little brown outfits in bed?? And how about the way Ben's apartment is decorated in brown? Is brown going to be the new color? And there are so many really ugly older men in this movie.. when is someone going to make a movie that calls for a whole cast of ugly old women? This movie has tense, "exciting" music all through it. If the music wasn't there, would we be more likely to notice how the script makes little sense?
Who cares? Once again, Ben is a great actor, a cute actor, and wearing wonderful simple outfits that emphasize how cute he is! Four stars!!!
Where's the beef?
posted on 26 Jun 2009As a drama the movie is good, as an action film it is fair. That is my main beef with the film. I was expecting an action film but ended up listening to a lot of words.I knew before I went to the movie that it was only loosely based on Clancy's novel (thanks to the comments on this site), good thing too or I would have been disappointed. Hollywood had to be politically correct and pick different bad guys, alternate locations, present day, and messed with Ryan's place in the scheme of things.So I went to the movie with the mindset that this is a totally new thing, not the book. And it seemed to work...I enjoyed the movie for what it is...a drama.
Gritty and absorbing
posted on 24 Jun 2009After the success of Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games, theJack Ryan saga went off the rails a little with Clear and PresentDanger in 1994. By the time producer Mace Neufeld decided todust down the series, interest was not that high. Full credit to himthen that he managed to deliver one of the most absorbing thrillersof recent years. Ben Affleck delivers a fine performance as theyounger Ryan while Morgan Freeman is as watchable as ever asthe CIA VIP who takes him under his wing. The direction by PhilAlden Robinson is also excellent, mixing gritty documentary styledrama while nail biting stylistic tension. The supporting cast,including the excellent Ron (Alias) Rifkin and Alan Bates aresplendid while Jerry Goldsmith delivers a stylish score. Well wortha look.
Book butchered by [censored] executives
posted on 20 Jun 2009(SPOILERS!) Simply put, 'Sum' is a story that is obsolete and shouldn't have even been put onto film. There is no more Cold War, thereby eliminating 1/3 of the credibility of the book and the switch from angry Arabs to Neo-Nazis is one of Hollywood's dumbest mistakes! Who in their right mind believes the revised plotline is realistic?! Affleck has neither the action potential of Ford nor the charm of Baldwin, almost everyone else acts like a bunch of nincompoops. Willem Dafoe's calm, collective coolness is sadly replaced, pity. Finally, I just wish Paramount will make Rainbow Six into a movie and do it right, the odds of success would be much greater. By the way, the REAL nuke site is Denver and not Baltimore--idiot scriptwriters.
Not an Ben fan, however the movie was great! - SPOLIERS!
posted on 14 Jun 2009Ok, Ok, I don't like war movies. That having been said, this movie was more about the relationship and machismo that leads up to war rather than the actual war. Ben was decent, Morgan always satisfies and the guy that plays the Russian leader was deep and awesome.However, my problem with the movie is it's glitches. The stadium that the president is in is located in Baltimore, so why are the two football teams from Florida and Chicago? Also, Ben walks around at Ground Zero Baltimore, so why doesn't he die of poisoning? Despite the flaws, the plot is excellent with more twists and turns than Justin Timberlake's new hair-do! I was constantly engaged and always surprised.I would recommend this movie to people craving suspense and action. It is a tad bloody and messy, but hey - it's war. Two thumbs up!Viva Liev Schreiber! Missed you since you were Cotton Weary in Scream!
Doesn't add up
posted on 14 Jun 2009THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (2002) **1/2 Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Liev Schreiber, Alan Bates, Philip Baker Hall, Bruce McGill, Ron Rifkin, Bridget Moynahan. Affleck assumes the Jack Ryan mantle from predecessors Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin in the Tom Clancy franchise but lands flat footed in this atypical geopolitical potboiler focusing on a rehash of Cold War fears (i.e. nuclear war) with a smart yet leaden screenplay (the film falls apart by the third – and crucial – act) by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne and able direction by Phil Alden Robinson.
Unbelievable
posted on 23 Aug 2009I can suspend my disbelief in a sci-fi movie, or in a good comedy. As long as the world portrayed is consistent with itself, I have no problem.But when a movie that pretends be a cautionary tale of what may happen, presents an implausible plot, the only thing I can do is laugh.MINOR SPOILER: The movie starts with a fighter/bomber plane carrying an atomic bomb that crashes and somehow no one searches for it. Anywhere in this world a plane crash would lead to a search & rescue being sent, especially when the stakes are so high. Not in this movie. END SPOILER.The characters are underdeveloped and cliched. Everything is pure Hollywood. The movie doesn't even point out that in the event of a nuclear war, it doesn't matter who strikes first, since immediately after the launch the other side would launch their missiles too, so in the end there are no winners, only losers.