The Sum of all Trite

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 12:17

Has anyone seen 'The Sum of all Fears'? I saw it at the cinema and this film is the worst I've seen in a while - at least Signs (with it's seemingly infinite plot holes) has suspense.

I saw this film as going badly at the very beggining, when a military plane was blown up carrying a nuclear missile. Even though the plane and its pilot were incinerated in the air, the photograph of his wife and child survived. So apparently in 1973 kodak invented explosion-proof photographs - which allowed for an incredibly overused cliche (the wreckage being surveyed and the photograph lying amongst it). Oh, and apparently nuclear bombs can survive such explosions and remain intact.

And speaking of cliches, why did the African-American guy die just as he was revealing important information to Ben Affleck? How ****ing overused is that? It is a sign of incredibly lazy (or incompetant) directing to still have a 'They key is hidden in the ..aaah' death scene.

The ending made me want to throw up. Wow, Ben Affleck and the pretty girl stayed together? Wow, what a surprise, they live happily ever after and every single bad guy dies!

The thing that was worst about the film however, was that unlike films created during the Cold War, the enemy was the European Union . You start to get an inkling of anti-Europeanism near the beggining, when a European is talking to some branch of the EU about standing on our own two feet and he has a swastika on his watch.
Then later in the film it goes on about how Europe is 'far-right' and it is 'Aryan nations working together for the first time'. That's strange, I was under the impression that the EU was mainly left-liberal.

All in all this film is lazy, improbable and downright offensive.

So what did you think of it?

Lonestar · August 25, 2002, 12:55

You didn't read the book, didja?

In the Book, the Terrorists were Palestinians, who had some thugs dressed as Sovs attack Western troops in West Berlin (the Book was published in 1991). Nuclear bomb did go off, but it was in Denver.

The Production company decided they wanted to "Update" the story, because, apperently, Palestinian Terrorists are f--king archaic.

That having been said, it seems to me the Austrian is suppose to be Haider, you got a British dude, and you got a lePen dude. Not bad, I guess. I'd still prefer that they stuck with the Palestinian terrorists. Blame it on liberal Hollywood, who;d much rather have rich white guys be the baddies.

Ben Afflack's charecter is Jack Ryan, and in the book Jack Ryan has been married for some years (I think he's 40 or so in the book). Though you couldn't tell from the movie, this is the same charecter from
The Hunt for the Red October, Patriot Games, and Clear and Present Danger.

So, stop your whining and read the damn book.

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar
You didn't read the book, didja?

In the Book, the Terrorists were Palestinians, who had some thugs dressed as Sovs attack Western troops in West Berlin (the Book was published in 1991). Nuclear bomb did go off, but it was in Denver.

The Production company decided they wanted to "Update" the story, because, apperently, Palestinian Terrorists are f--king archaic.

That having been said, it seems to me the Austrian is suppose to be Haider, you got a British dude, and you got a lePen dude. Not bad, I guess. I'd still prefer that they stuck with the Palestinian terrorists. Blame it on liberal Hollywood, who;d much rather have rich white guys be the baddies.

Ben Afflack's charecter is Jack Ryan, and in the book Jack Ryan has been married for some years (I think he's 40 or so in the book). Though you couldn't tell from the movie, this is the same charecter from
The Hunt for the Red October, Patriot Games, and Clear and Present Danger.

So, stop your whining and read the damn book.

I was commented on the film, not the book. And I hardly think it's liberal to be opposed to the European Union

Lonestar · August 25, 2002, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

I was commented on the film, not the book. And I hardly think it's liberal to be opposed to the European Union

But it is to avoid offending "Minority groups" and making the bad guy a white, rich dude.

Zkribbler · August 25, 2002, 14:33

I purposely didn't see the movie because I loved the book so much & I knew they were going to wreck it.

If you wanna see a good movie: The Bourne Identity.

Lorizael · August 25, 2002, 15:39

The Bourne Identity was diappointing... there was very little actual plot if you think about it. More a premise than a fully detailed story. Nice action seens though.

A friend of mine, who also happens to have read everything by Tom Clancy, said that Hunt For Red October was really the only good movie based on a Tom Clancy book.

For me the best part of The Sum of All Fears was the 'splosion, but that wasn't even all that great. It was at least entertaining, took my mind off of our terrible world for awhile.

Az · August 25, 2002, 16:52

Lonestar : I read Clancy's books, but hate them for their incorrectness , as well. It sometimes takes insurmountable leaps of faith in the plot.
Damn Addictive , Though. He's a kick ass story teller.

Clear Skies · August 25, 2002, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar

But it is to avoid offending "Minority groups" and making the bad guy a white, rich dude.

So why wasn't the bad guy an American?

Anyway, RJ, you know you only went to see that film cos it had Ben Affleck in it.

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Clear Skies

So why wasn't the bad guy an American?

Anyway, RJ, you know you only went to see that film cos it had Ben Affleck in it.

It was a coin toss between Ben Affleck and Will Smith

Kepler · August 25, 2002, 17:02

I posted a thread about this when I saw it about a month ago. I think "Sum" was possibly the worst movie of the year. And Ben Affleck has a frighteningly large head.

Az · August 25, 2002, 17:20

Hey, There's nothing wrong with a large head!

/me has a large head.

chequita guevara · August 25, 2002, 17:28

I haven't read a Clancy book since I tried to read Red Storm Rising, (back in the 80s, before I was a commie, so get that idea out of your head). It bored me, made me think about The Hunt for Red October, and how there was no tension in the plot of that book. Every plan always came off.

People says he's gotten better, but I'm still skeptical.

Az · August 25, 2002, 18:31

Now some plans fail . But they're the ones made by terrorists.

I hate the way he always portrays the Americans as the PERFECT good guys. I have no problem with painting the americans as good guys . It is to be expected . But here ,nothing , not a hint of criticism , The plot is always black'n'white .

But his detailed descriptions .... they make it all worth while.

DinoDoc · August 25, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I hate the way he always portrays the Americans as the PERFECT good guys.

You're just mad about the way you come off in the book version of The Sum of All Fears.

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 18:36

Did anyone else wanna smack the US President in that film? Or at least watch him get blown apart

DinoDoc · August 25, 2002, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Did anyone else wanna smack the US President in that film? Or at least watch him get blown apart

He gets thrown out of office in the book.

Az · August 25, 2002, 18:38

DinoDoc: No.

you gotta realize how incorrect he is at times.

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He gets thrown out of office in the book.

Well that sounds better. That man is the most stupid and incompetant President I have ever seen in a serious film.

ThePantaloonDog · August 25, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

It was a coin toss between Ben Affleck and Will Smith

Bah! MIB2 was miserable. I doubt Will Smith could distract you from all the stupidity in that movie.

red_jon · August 25, 2002, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog

Bah! MIB2 was miserable. I doubt Will Smith could distract you from all the stupidity in that movie.

Worse than the Sum of all Fears? It's quite scary to think I actually chose the better film last night

DinoDoc · August 25, 2002, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
you gotta realize how incorrect he is at times.

It's called fiction. History is a different part of the bookstore.

Imran Siddiqui · August 25, 2002, 19:38

Quote:

I hate the way he always portrays the Americans as the PERFECT good guys.

You are kidding right? You have one of the most idiotic, trigger-happy US Presidents in SoAF, and then one of the most corrupt in Clear and Present Danger. At least 2 US Presidents had to resign in the book. Americans do not come off as perfect by any means.

Skanky Burns · August 25, 2002, 20:44

The hero's are always perfect. Not all Americans.

Imran Siddiqui · August 25, 2002, 20:49

Well Ryan is an alcoholic

Skanky Burns · August 25, 2002, 21:11

Ok, they have a single flaw, but that flaw doesn't manage to prevent them from saving the day or getting the girl. It comes close to preventing them, but they overcome whatever it is.

ThePantaloonDog · August 25, 2002, 21:23

Yea MIB2 is one of those movies you take your SO to. "Gee this movie is so boring and its so dark in here. Whatever will we do?"

Q Classic · August 25, 2002, 21:31

the movie looked like @ss from the get go, what with all the plot changes.

lonestar got most of the big changes:
1. a white neo-nazi bad guy (i still don't understand why they'd want to bomb the us...) instead of a muslim fundamentalist terrorist.
2. a stolen russian nuke instead of a lost israeli nuke (this one i can deal with).
3. baltimore gets blown up, instead of denver (eh, this one's a tossup.)
4. jack ryan is young, instead of old (i don't like this one-- he's supposed to already have gone through a lot).

see, i dunno about you, but when you change too many critical elements of the original plot, you should lose any right to say it's based on the original text.

which is why another piss-poor movie like that, "the time machine," ostensibly based on the novel, shouldn't have said it was.

hollywood has a funny way of "adapting" books to screen. if by "adapting" you mean rewriting the entire fvcking thing.

DinoDoc · August 25, 2002, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
2. a stolen russian nuke instead of a lost israeli nuke (this one i can deal with).

It was still an Israeli nuke.

C0ckney · August 25, 2002, 22:05

So to sum up..the book was great..the movie is shite

Q Classic · August 25, 2002, 23:04

yeah, i haven't seen it. what little i know of it i got from various reviews, so my apologies about the origin of the nuke.

perhaps i should see the movie to understand why exactly white neo-nazis would want to bomb a white united states... and how white neo-nazi anti-semites ever got a hold of a jewish atomic weapon...