View Full Version : Sum of all Fears = DIRE
MartinImber
28-06-2003, 8:40 PM
I hired this - waste of £3.50
Jack Ryan is not deputy director, not married, the bomb is not Arab.
Nothing like the book at all - the film is rubbish!:( :mad: :mad:
Squirrel God
28-06-2003, 9:10 PM
I don't know whether the film is like the book or not as I haven't read it, but I certainly wouldn't criticise a film for not being true to the book. Many films change details and still work. The details you mention sound utterly trivial too.
Having said that, I didn't like this film either. I'm not a Jack Ryan fan so that probably didn't help, but I thought that given the cast I would like it. Sadly, it did nothing for me - the director was not very good at building excitement or tension, and the cast delivered rather lacklustre performances.
Spoiler:
I did love the nuclear explosion though. The DD 5.1 soundtrack really shone at that point :)
I know many who liked this film though. I think we are in the minority, Martin ;)
chris_ronaldo
28-06-2003, 9:34 PM
Yeah i'm actually half way through the book at the moment and so far the similarities are minimal. Thought the film was OK but the book is way better (same as the Jurassic Park & Lost World films weren't as good as the books), I like the Jack Ryan character and thought the film could have been way better.
MartinImber
28-06-2003, 9:46 PM
It does not follow on from the previous films!
Previously he had a family
Previously he was high up in the CIA
I mean how can the young lad version become president for the next book (not spoiler it is on the cover)
Squirrel God
28-06-2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by MartinImber
It does not follow on from the previous films!
Previously he had a family
Previously he was high up in the CIA
Previously he was played by a variety of different actors of varying ages :grin:
ldoodle
28-06-2003, 10:22 PM
Maybe it's set before the other films with Harrison Ford? Don't know cause I aint reas the books.
Family Guy
29-06-2003, 7:47 AM
Originally posted by ldoodle
Maybe it's set before the other films with Harrison Ford? Don't know cause I aint reas the books.
Spot on mate - it is set before the other films...
MartinImber
29-06-2003, 8:37 AM
Spot on mate - it is set before the other films...
No it is set recently - where were his children?
Where was his nuclear launch authority?
Where were the Arab terrorists?
I was really looking forwards to this and it was cack!
Family Guy
29-06-2003, 9:02 AM
I think the fact that Cathy and Jack weren't actually married gives the fact away that it's set before the others...
I think it was well-documented prior to release that this was a 're-imagining' of the whole Ryan character. Obviously Affleck could not play the Ryan character in a 'sequel' to the other movies due to the vast age differences, the film would then fall apart on the same grounds that you're complaining of. Would you believe a character of his age could really make deputy director or be given nuclear launch control? For our sake I hope not!
And as for the arab terrorists, come on! The film would never have been released in the wake of 9/11 if it had arabs detonating a nuclear bomb on US soil.
As mentioned earlier, I think it's really bad to denigrate a movie because it doesn't follow the book. Why should it? It's based on the book but that doesn't mean I want a literal translation. If you think the movie sucks then that's fine, but I think it should be for other reasons than just being different to the source material.
Family Guy
29-06-2003, 9:11 AM
CarlB,
I think you are spot on again. However, at no point does MartinImber compare the film to the book...I can only assume that:
1. He hasn't read the book.
2. He believes the films are being released in number order...which thay are not.
I think the whole re imaging process as you put it, was done rather well. And if MartinImber wants to compare the film to the book on all that is Clancy, then maybe he should read/watch Clear & Present Danger. Now that reall WAS dire...IIRC, Tom Clancy actually stated that all conversions from there on in needed to be supervised personally by him because it was so bad. The book had me on the edge of my seat. The film had me fast asleep in my chair...:boring:
For the record, I enjoyed both film and book - however with a gun to my head, the book just has the edge...
mcmullanbrush
29-06-2003, 9:32 AM
While we are on the subject....
Why hasnt James Bond retired? He must be well into his seventies by now
Why was he never promoted? He seemed quite good at his job.
What happened to his Scottish accent?
Family Guy
29-06-2003, 10:12 AM
And what happened to the Parrot in Traesure Planet?
Family Guy
29-06-2003, 11:04 AM
Cardinal Of The Kremlin is, IMO, the best Clancy book. Who would make a good Clarke though? I always saw Ben Affleck plaing him but that's gone out the window now...
Originally posted by Confucius
I would look forward to movies of 'Debt of Honor' (sic), 'Executive Orders' and 'The Bear and the Dragon' if they reverted to being a closer adaptation of the novels.
Can't see 'Debt of Honor' being made into a film considering its ending.
MartinImber
29-06-2003, 4:29 PM
I HAVE read the book - thats why the film was a total disappointment
alle v
30-06-2003, 9:48 AM
...People should watch a film and appreciate it for what it is.
'Based on' doesn't mean 'accurate portrayal down to the minutest detail' ...if that were the case then hardly any books would see the light of day (or dimmed ;)) in the cinema 'cos they would just not be adaptable.
There are many films that I have watched without reading the book. Enjoyed them nonetheless :)
Personally I thought the film was good and I bought it :)
Matt Horne
02-07-2003, 10:02 PM
Just finished watching this (R2 DTS dvd) and throughly enjoyed it.. I knew nothing about the film (nor have read the book) so I just sat back and took it as it came..
I don't think its as good as the previous 3 ryan films.. esp as has been mentioned it felt completely different.. but I sat glued and let my sub do the talking.
Matt
It is a sad fact that films never match up to the books they were based on. In fact the only film that I have seen which I can say matches the book is 'To kill a Mockingbird'.
I personally think it's a travesty that they changed the Jack Ryan character for this film, but then again I never forgave them for leaving out Tom Bombadil from LoTR.
Banshee
04-07-2003, 3:42 PM
...People should watch a film and appreciate it for what it is.
Agreed.
It is a sad fact that films never match up to the books they were based on.
A bit too much of a generalisation I feel. How can you expect 300+,400+ etc. page books to be distilled and re-produced in 2/2.5 hours (let's leave LOTR out of this). You can try and reproduce the book and make a total pigs ear of it - witness Brett Ratner and the dismal Red Dragon or you can try and capture the essence of the book - witness Michael Mann and Manhunter. On the last one I feel the book Red Dragon is complemented by Manhunter.
To capture the quantity/quality of material then maybe mini-series are the way to go. For example - Dune and Salem's Lot (which I watched on Sky recently and it still holds up).
Banshee
04-07-2003, 3:45 PM
But anyway what I forgot to say :blush: is - I really enjoyed 'The Sum of All Fears' and 'Clear and Present Danger'