The Sum of All Fears (2002) User Reviews

Well Made Thriller

[eastbergholt2002 · 8/10 · 10 March 2007]

Sum of All Fears is an enjoyable thriller and the type of movie the Hollywood studios have always been good at making. It's slick, expensive-looking, well-acted and two hours of far-fetched fun. Ben Affleck plays CIA Agent and superman Jack Ryan PhD. Ryan is a former marine, linguist and all-round polymath who saves the world from impending disaster. Affleck is youthful and convincing as Ryan and makes him seem fallible and likable. Ryan becomes a confidant of the wise and sensible CIA Director Bill Cabot (Morgan Freeman) and acquires a beautiful and successful girlfriend (Bridget Moynahan) who believes he's a historian.

The plot is complicated and involves a new Russian leader (Ciaran Hands) who spouts anti-U.S. rhetoric. A Russian chemical attack on Chechnya increases the tension between the two countries. An Israeli atomic bomb is found in the Egyption desert,a relic of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict. Neo-Nazi terrorists (led by Alan Bates) want to provoke a nuclear conflict between America and Russia. They acquire the bomb from a South African arms dealer and explode it in Baltimore. The U.S. blames the Russians and the two countries are about to commence all-out nuclear war until Ryan works out what is happening and it all ends happily. The message is that the new Russian leaders are reasonable men signifying that the world has moved on from the Commie bashing flicks of the 1980s.

The idea of a terrorist nuclear attack is topical, but unfortunately the Neo-Nazi villains seem very 1970s. The film has good character actors in supporting roles (e.g., Liev Schrieber, James Cromwell). I much prefer Afflek's Ryan to that of the 52 year-old Harrison Ford who by 1994's Clear and Present Danger seemed too old and surly for the role.

Let's see. Who else has 27,000 nukes for us to worry about?

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 22 September 2012]

The Sum of All Fears is directed by Phil Alden Robinson and adapted to screenplay by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne from the novel of the same name written by Tom Clancy. It stars Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Ciaran Hinds, Liev Schreiber, Bridget Moynahan and Michael Byrne. Music is scored by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by John Lindley.

Film is the fourth film to feature the character Jack Ryan (Affleck). It is set in present day 2002 but with Ryan younger than in the other films and at the start of his career in the CIA. Plot is Cold War themed and finds America in a sweat when it is found that renegade terrorists have a nuclear weapon in their possession; just as a new supposed radical president takes up office in Russia.

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.

2002 saw two great thrillers released that starred Ben Affleck, one was Changing Lanes, the other was this Jack Ryan based effort that attempted to reboot the series. Coming a year after the September 11 attacks and featuring a plot involving terrorists using a bomb that America supplied the Israelis in the 70s during the Yom Kippur War, it was material too close to the bone for some critics. Yet the film did well at the box office in the States and including Worldwide takings it garnered well over $100 million in profit. Impressive figures considering it's not an action blockbuster, it relies on brain over brawn and leading man Affleck was on the back of Pearl Harbor and bearing the brunt of critical scorn.

Each day we lose a little bit more of our separate, sovereign ability to determine our own futures... and each day the world comes a little bit closer to that terrible moment when the beating of a butterfly's wings unleashes a hurricane God himself cannot stop.

Comforted by the superb cast around him, which also includes the likes of Colm Feore, Phillip Baker Hall and Alan Bates in support slots, Affleck proves perfect for the material to hand. Without doubt he's no Harrison Ford, in the same way Moynahan is no Anne Archer, tough boots to fill in the roles of Jack and Cathy Ryan respectively, but in a re-jig of Ryan the character, we now have the arrogance of youth dressed up in slacks and t-shirt, a smart brained youngster beginning his CIA career at a perilous time, a time that thankfully is devoid of jingoistic flag waving, but of adult political sensibilities. Affleck's Ryan as a character is as refreshing as the writers' responsible attitude is.

You dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. You dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Do not lecture me on Chechnya!

With shades of the Cuban Missile Crisis and a Fail-Safe like finale, The Sum of All Fears rounds out as a nail biter of a thriller. Dig deeper and some implausibilities surface, but we are asked to tune into the paranoia and get in deep with the characters trying to avert global catastrophe, to decry the film's cerebral thriller qualities is churlish. The Jack Ryan parts of the film involving Cathy the girlfriend are the least interesting, but here's the thing, young Jack Ryan is just one of the components making up a far bigger whole. The film isn't solely a Jack Ryan movie. The source novel was a door stopper, so inevitably much as been excised from it, and inevitably fans of the book have been vocal in their displeasure; though we would have needed another hour of film to even get close to Clancy's big block of fiction. So in place is a picture that is uncomplicated in structure and story telling and comes in at under two hours running time. It's credit to director Robinson that The Sum of All Fears engrosses from start to finish.

It was hoped that the reboot would herald the start of a run of more Jack Ryan based movies, but in spite of the great box office, this didn't materialise. But that is in no way any marker to the quality of the film, or its standing in the Jack Ryan series. Judge it on its own merits and ideas and the rewards are many, especially on a second viewing. At the time of writing Jack Ryan will return to the big screen in December 2013, titled simply as Jack Ryan, with another young actor, Chris Pine in the role of Ryan. Undoubtedly that will be high on action, such is the way of drawing in the young dollars at the multiplexes these days. But if it has half the tension and brains of Robinson's picture then we will be blessed. If not? Then there's an even bigger reason to treasure Jack Ryan's 2002 version. 7.5/10

Forget that you have read the book.

[svannozzi · 11 June 2002]

This movie is very good and worth the money to go see. IF... you are able to forget that you read a book by the same title who's author was the executive director of the film. If you are able to separate the two you will enjoy the film. I found that I was able to enjoy the film but had long discussions and was bothered by many inconsistencies from the book. The location of the action (Baltimore), the time (2002), the time the activity took place in Jack Ryan's life (early), the level of his position within the CIA (low), the lack of any other fears to sum up, all were very different from the book and while I was able to enjoy the film as I watched it is has been bothering me more as I reflect on it.

So my recommendation is see the movie then read the book, I have found that to be true with most of Clancy's work. I guess a movie just can't handle the whole story.

Exciting and thrilling installment in which a young analyst , Jack Ryan, must supply advise to US President , then goes into action

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 31 August 2014]

Jack Ryan's entry with lots of noisy action , thrills , chills , tension and amazing thriller . This blockbuster is an acceptable adaptation of the novel by Tom Clancy , companion to other prior renditions . The title is paraphrased from a Winston Churchill speech; "Why, you can take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears." It deals with CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) along with a ranking member (Morgan Freeman) of Presidential administration must thwart the plans of a terrorist faction that threatens to induce a catastrophic conflict between the United States and Russia's newly elected president by detonating a nuclear weapon at a football game in Baltimore. As there are 27,000 Nuclear Weapons and One Is Missing . Now Ryan goes back in action for the most vital assignment of his life : to save the President (James Cromwell) and the nation .

Stirring outing filled with emotion , suspense , chills , twisted intrigue and extraordinary nail-biting action scenes . This film is a prequel to the others in the Jack Ryan series . The 'Harrison Ford' films are direct follow-ups to The hunt for Red October (1990) despite the recast of Alec Baldwin's role . Nevertheless, in this film we see Jack Ryan meet John Clark, something which also happens in Clear and present danger (1994) . Therefore this film might be best understood as a reboot of the Jack Ryan series . Interesting screenplay plenty of twists and thrills by Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne . However , the filmmaker changed the villains from Islamic extremists , in the novel , to Neo-Nazis ; this was done because prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks, he did not believe Arab terrorists could plausibly accomplish all that was necessary for the plot to work on film . Good production design , in fact , the CIA scenes were filmed at the actual CIA headquarters ; this was one of the times the CIA had ever done such a thing . And this was the first American film unit to enter the Kremlin , though Red Heat (1988) was the first American unit to film in Moscow . The spectacular "Super Bowl" scene takes place in Baltimore , the two teams playing in the game are portrayed by the Toronto Argonauts and the Montreal Alouettes . Real U. S. Marines along with two Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters were used for the sequence of rescuing Fowler from the wrecked motorcade . The picture has a very good support cast who gives excellent performances such as James Cromwell as President Fowler , Bruce McGill as National Security Adviser , John Beasley as General Lasseter , Philip Baker Hall as Defense Secretary , Joseph Sommer as Senator , Michael Byrne , Liev Schreiber , Alan Bates , Sven-Ole Thorsen , Ron Rifkin , Colm Feore and special mention to Ciaran Hinds as Russia President . Spectacular musical score fitting to action and suspense by maestro veteran Jerry Goldsmith . Colorful and atmospheric cinematography by John Lindley . The picture is well directed by Phil Alden Robinson , though Philip Noyce, director of previous entries, was offered to direct but turned it down and Wolfgang Petersen was also offered the chance to direct but declined.

This blockbuster is an entertaining adaptation of the novel by Tom Clancy , companion to ¨The hunt for Red October¨ by John MacTiernan with Alec Balwin and Sean Connery , followed by ¨Patriot games¨ (1992) by Philip Noyce with Harrison Ford taking over the role of Ryan from Alec Baldwin and again ¨Clear and present danger¨(1994) by Philip Noyce with Harrison Ford and Anne Archer . Then Harrison Ford dropped out of reprising the role of Jack Ryan because he and director Phillip Noyce could not agree on the script and Noyce ended up dropping out of the film as well. And finally , Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) by Kenneth Brannagh with Chris Pine as Jack Ryan , Keira Knightley and Kevin Costner .

Not bad

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 26 June 2002]

Russia and the U.S. are on the verge of a nuclear war all masterminded by a terrorist. Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) knows, but can he convince both the governments?

There's more to it but, basically, that's the plot. As it is, it's pretty good. It may be a little disturbing, however, to some people after 9/11. If this had been released before then it would have been seen as just another Cold War movie. It's very well-done but no great shakes...the attack scenes are frightening to watch.

Affleck is very good as Ryan. He's young, good-looking, intelligent and Affleck's low-key acting fits the Ryan role like a glove. Morgan Freeman shows up (again) as a mentor to Ryan. Nothing against Freeman, but hasn't he played this role once too often? Also John Cromwell is excellent as the president (completely covering his British accent).

So, an enjoyable drama...unless 9/11 really hit you close to home. If it did, avoid this.

Totally ruined by some Hollywood dimwit changing the bad guys

[p-jonsson · 1/10 · 21 November 2014]

Well, if we start with the good. The story itself is not really too bad and if you forget the title, the mention of Tom Clancy and Jack Ryan, then the movie is decent enough. It is a reasonably well implemented thriller. Not great but worth seeing.

However, the book is about Arab terrorists performing terrorist acts by means of thermonuclear devices causing the two superpowers to come to the brink of a nuclear war. The movie has replaced this foe with some nonsense story about emerging neo-Nazis wanting to take over the world. This is just utter rubbish. It is obviously a political decision by some asshole not wanting to upset the Arab community so he picks a "safe" bad guy instead. The speech where the head Nazi compares themselves with a virus was just unintelligent writing and painful to watch.

Nazis are obvious bad guys and can be put to good use in movies, just as communists and Muslim terrorists and a whole bunch of other groups, but not when the original material uses another, much more logical, foe. The original foes in the book would have some force behind them in the radical Muslim community that made their plans for world takeover after the superpowers had annihilated each other at least somewhat plausible. If you ignore minor details like that there would really not be much to take over after a barrage of nuclear missiles from USA and Russian of course. But a few twisted old Nazis that sits in hiding in dark rooms cooking together this hair-brained scheme? No way! I am sad to say that whoever asshole that decided to rewrite the main adversary of this movie ruined it totally for me. I am really happy that I never watched it when it came out in the theaters but instead watched it, in a sense "for free", on my Netflix subscription.

An exciting movie

[Okonh0wp · 8/10 · 16 May 2004]

This film is exciting and suspenseful and that has more than a little bit to do with the talk of terrorism and nuclear threats are so pervasive in the news today. Oliver Cromwell plays the dumb president, Morgan Freeman plays the slightly more intelligent Seceretary of State John Cabot, and Ben Afflect plays our hero, CIA operative Jack Ryan. We've supposedly seen him before in Clear and Present Danger, but it was a different actor from a movie that has long since been forgotten since its release a decade ago, so there's not much of a sequel feel to it. This leads to the only real drawback of the movie: since we're expected to be familiar with these guys, there's virtually no development of the characters. I'm not criticizing the actors, but at the end of the movie I left knowing nothing about the characters other than their names, their job titles, and that they all shared a common goal of preventing the nation from being blown up. However, the story in which CIA analyst Jack Ryan tries to uncover a plot to bring Russia and the United States to the brink of nuclear war, more than makes up for the lack of characterization. It moves at an exciting pace, it is packed with plenty of action, and it has the same draw as TV shows like Alias, 24, The Agency, and West Wing, taking us behind the scenes of an important government agency which we otherwise wouldn't have access to. The difference here is that we know we're seeing something authentic because Tom Clancy does his homework. The story is bold and unpredictable but Affleck's character comes through in an exciting climax, where he has to give a persuasive speech to both his own president and the leader of Russia to avoid an all-out war. If you don't live in the Greater Baltimore Area, it's a happy ending! *** out of ****

The Sum Of All Cop Outs

[michael_russell · 3/10 · 19 January 2004]

I read the book "The Sum of All Fears" with fascination--Palestenians discover an Isreali nuclear device lost when the aircraft is shot down in the six day war, sell it to Al Queda, and the arab terrorists proceed to blow up Denver with said nuke.

I was very much looking forward to this movie, only to find that for fear of offending Al Queda, the director and screenwriters had substituted some ridiculous plot about German Nazi's and turned the whole thing into a melodramatic hash.

This could have been a GREAT, prophetic, movie. instead it became a silly waste of money and talent. I know Tom Clancy hated the movie, so did I.

Enthralling film. LOVED IT

[Undead_Master · 10/10 · 30 October 2002]

After reading several negative reviews, I was shocked when I finally saw `The sum of all fears'. I simply LOVED this movie . It was totally thrilling. It had all the ingredients of a great adventure and to top it off it was visually poetic and emotionally stirring.

I never read the book this is based on, and I'm not a Tom Clancy fan. I came into this movie expecting to hate it, because I have hated all the other films in the Jack Ryan series. They were too dry and technical, lacking immediacy or emotion and they felt more like lectures on the way government works and how the military operates than movies. Those films were made for Tom Clancy fans. The sum of all fears was made for a different audience, which is unfortunate since it is based on one of his novels. There is no doubt that it crosses the line into fantasy several times for dramatic effect. Things happen that probably wouldn't happen in real life. People do things that are impossibly heroic and unrealistic. I'm convinced this is why Clancy fans hate this adaptation. For me, these traits (considered flaws by many people) helped free the movie from the constraints of absolute realism, allowing it to become more poetic and powerful than it ever could be otherwise.

Director Phil Alden Robinson deserves most of the praise for this film. He's a new name for me, but looking at his filmography, it was interesting to see that he was the writer and director for field of dreams, another film that I totally loved. He was a very odd choice to helm this film, because field of dreams is a bizarre movie where reality and fantasy meet head on. It's an ultra surreal American fairy tale. It's like a happy David Lynch film, or a Luis Buñuel film with a wholesome center. This is not the kind of director you would normally choose to make a movie like the sum of all fears. The clash between the ultra realism of Clancy's material and Robinson's willingness to forgo realism in favor of dreamy fairy tale lyricism creates a wonderful sense of vibrancy that I would never have anticipated.

After seeing the sum of all fears, I am now convinced that Robinson will go on to make a huge name for himself. He is a truly gifted director with an incredible ability to communicate through images. I can't wait to see his next film. If field of dreams is any indication, he is just good a writer as he is as a director, and I am excited to see what other sorts of ideas he might produce.

The movie also has tremendous performances by Morgan Freeman, and (surprisingly) Ben Affleck. He's way to young to play Jack Ryan, so he doesn't even try. The Jack Ryan in this movie is a reinvented character. He's basically a young guy, with the mentality of an idealist, working his way up in the CIA, while trying to juggle a bachelors social life. For me, he works in this film and he plays that kind of character perfectly.

The bottom line is this: If you love Tom Clancy and you've read every one of his books, you're probably going to hate this movie. If you have never read the book, and have no real interest in Clancy's work, you'll probably at least enjoy it. If your like me, and you don't mind films that let drama interfere with rationality, you'll probably love it.

War - what is it good for?

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 20 September 2021]

What is one of the worst things or even the worst that can happen? Nuclear war ... and at the time this is playing, the big players going at each others throats would be USA and Russia. Now the movie will not make a big secret of what is happening to the viewer, but it will be tough to see for the goverments themselves ... which leads us to the question I asked and also the answer - which obviously I won't reveal, because of spoilers and all that.

The acting is really good and the suspense is as high as it gets. You may know or think you know how this all will end, but that does not take away anything of the journey you are about to embark. Really good stuff and really well played from everyone involved. Some cliches are even taken head on and the movie spins them a little bit ... just a little bit, but still refreshing.

Haven't read any of the novels by the way, so I can not compare this to the source material. Which may be a good thing I reckon ... but I thought I'd mention it, just in case you were wondering how it fares.

Um, yes, I need to deliver some information to prevent a war, is that cool with you guys? Worth a rent.

[james-forrest · 7/10 · 30 December 2007]

First thing that struck me was the casting of Ben Affleck- im not sure why and if this was just me, but i expected him to come out with some punch lines and start cracking jokes at any second- he just didn't fit the role for me personally. Morgan Freeman also didn't seem to have a solid cast in this movie.

The story was fairly captivating however, Cromwell was good to watch as always and Morgan Freeman did his best given the role Overall worth a rent but probably not a buy guys. Catch it on TV if you can and you will be probably entertained for that night.

7/10

Awful... Just Awful

[pluto-11 · 3/10 · 12 February 2004]

Someone noted that it was stupid to compare a movie with the book it is based on. Personally, I think it is natural to do so when the quality of the plot (the aspect both mediums have in common, a plot) is considerably changed between the two, either for the better or the worse. In this case, the movie chooses to change the "baddies" from Arab terrorists to Nazi's??? The one thing that makes a Clancy novel so good is its ability to project verisimilitude in its fictional scenarios - one feels like "this could happen" while reading, that is what makes it thrilling!

Why, oh why, did the film maker choose Nazi's over Arabs as the villains - the real Nazi's need walkers to get around, they are so old. The new neo Nazi is so laughable as an international threat... Rejects from Jerry Springer launching a complex plan to steal a nuclear warhead!!! Hah! If you listen to the comment track on the DVD, Clancy snorts and laughs when this topic is brought up; it is obvious what he thinks about the plausibility of Nazi terrorism. I got the impression that it was the director's wishy washy smooshy PC politics that motivated this lame change in the plot - if he had problems with the plot he should have passed over the project, not wimpify it as he did.

Finally, the choice of Affleck for Ryan! This casting choice bewilders... he seriously lacks the gravitas of either of the previous Ryan choices. They should have used Liev Schreiber who plays John Clark for the Ryan role instead - when they are on the screen together it is so obvious who one follows and takes seriously on screen, Schreiber just blows Affleck away. This lousy choice of leading man ranks up there with casting Lazenby in the Bond series.

Lame, lame, lame. I hope they just put a bullet in the series rather than use the same creative team again.

Ben Affleck is Great as Jack Ryan in this Exciting Thriller

[lukem-52760 · 7/10 · 15 September 2022]

Harrison Ford was excellent as CIA Analyst Jack Ryan back in the 90's with his Classic Thriller's, Clear & Present Danger & Patriot Games, both excellent films & now we have Ben Affleck in the role & he's very good.

The Sum of All Fears is a proper all American terrorist threat thriller & feels very 90's & is very well made. Fears is not very violent & i liked that, it's a proper Saturday night popcorn thriller that you could watch with your family.

Ben Affleck is a great actor & a big movie star & has made loads of good to excellent films including, Paycheck, Deception aka: Reindeer Games, Changing Lanes, Daredevil, Batman vs Superman, Justice League, Pearl Harbour, Argo, Triple Frontier, The Town & many more. I've always liked Affleck as an actor & he makes a near perfect "Hollywood" leading man. Here the always likeable Affleck plays CIA Analyst Jack Ryan who is on a mission to track down a nuclear weapon that is in the hands of terrorists. Are the Russians behind this? Jack Ryan is trying to figure it out before it's too late. Affleck is surrounded by a very good cast with the legendary Morgan Freeman & Liev Schreiber (also starred with Affleck in the 1998 horror thriller PHANTOMS) & Bridget Moynahan & James Cromwell & many more recognisable faces.

The Sum of all Fears is a well paced & suspenseful Spy thriller about terrorists & their evil intentions. "Fears" is a fun & exciting film with some great action moments & nice cinematography & a thrilling score. Fears is a basic terrorist & bomb thriller story that feels very 90's & old school, its so much fun & Affleck is very good in another likeable role.

Affleck is one of the best Action Thriller stars working today.

Excellent Watch

[countryshack · 8/10 · 18 April 2022]

If you are reading reviews from people that are rating this movie less than at Least a five then don't believe it.<<They probably have an agenda.

If you, like most people, love James Bondish types of movies than you will really enjoy 'The Sum Of All Fears'.

It is as good as any other 'What If' type of movie.

I believe that you will entertained by the Drama and Suspense this movie cleverly creates.

Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Jack Ryan Movies

[dfreeman-7 · 9 April 2006]

People seem to expect jack Ryan movies to be more or less the way they imagine the books to be. This phenomenon is almost never the case when a movie comes out BASED ON THE BOOK. I emphasis BASED because it is never MEANT to be exactly what the book is. In "Sum Of All Fears", there is a switch from Arab to Fascist terrorists. Sure, some scenes are changed and others, unfortunately, left out. But being that the book is only based on the story, it is NOT GOINT TO BE the story itself. Somethings don't translate well on screen. A book is several hundred pages long. A movie two hours, and they can't very well put every detail from the book into the movie. I saw the film and thought it was good. I also saw all the other Clancy films and enjoyed them for what they were. Maybe not so good by comparison to the book, but never the less good for what they were. As for some characters, for example, Mary Pat Foley would have been unrecognized had it not been for the credits. She is known more for her role as a spy in "Cardinal of the Kremlin", which would make a great movie, if they ever did it.

very, very bad writing

[mcgrew · 1/10 · 10 April 2004]

Very, very bad writing requires supposedly bright, competent characters to act like morons to move the plot along. This movie has that in spades. Laughable bad-guys make laughable good-guys do ridiculous things in an attempt to build to a nuclear armageddon climax. Along the way, every so often somebody mouths some rockheaded thing, presumably the writer, director, actor or producer's political feelings. Just be aware that the world doesn't actually work like this, most particularly the world's nuclear arsenals. The only acting bright spot is Liev Schreiber, solid as always, but even he cannot save this turkey from Ben (Morgan Freeman is fine, of course, but mostly he just stands around looking alarmed.) Give this one a pass.

"This is canned!"

[DannyBoy-17 · 23 June 2002]

As an average espionage movie, this is a good flick. In fact, if the names involved weren't "Jack Ryan" and Tom Clancy, and if we hadn't actually seen some terrorist disasters in the last eight months, I would've thought it a really well-done intelligence thriller, looking at how Russia and the U.S. might head towards nuclear war if somehow a nuke went off in the U.S. during a time of tension. Affleck and Freeman seemed fine, but I keep on reminding myself supposedly that these are the characters that should have become James Earl Jones and Baldwin.

After September 11, and especially with the Clancy/Ryan films that have already been made, "Sum" just feels wrong. Philip Baker Hall's line about the response from the Russians, "This is canned!" feels like a description of the whole film. How can you blow up Baltimore and still have a happy go-lucky ending? If you are going to, ADMIT that you're just trying to make a fun Friday night flick, and not a TOPICAL IN-DEPTH film about U.S. security, which is kind of what Affleck and Clancy have been claiming they're doing. (Kind of like claiming the ridiculous "Air Force One" was a serious look at how to respond to terrorism on board the president's plane.)

Also, if this was a film about nuclear war, then it should have stuck to that possibility. If it's a film about the hunt for some terrorists planning a nuclear attack, that would be a different story. The way the film neatly wraps up everything in the end (with the exception of the destruction of BALTIMORE) is both silly and pure Hollywood. I'm disappointed, and I hope this is a hiccup in an otherwise intriguing series of well-done espionage films.

Garbage, total sellout garbage

[mikey1969 · 1/10 · 15 June 2003]

To start with, I am a Tom Clancy fan, I have been for years. I have actually met Secret Service agents and confirmed that his info tends to be rather accurate. Jack Ryan is a great character, but this movie was junk.

When I heard this movie was coming out, I was excited. I had thoroughly enjoyed the book, and thought they couldn't possibly screw this up at all. Then I read a brief synopsis. Suddenly, in the post-9/11 era, when fanatic muslims would usually be the villain of choice, anyway, somebody decides to jump on the P.C. bandwagon, and changes the bad guys to redneck white supremacists. I was floored. I can understand rewriting certain parts of a storyline, but completely switching the polarity of the bad guys is just silly. I finally decided to see the movie when it came out on DVD, and was even more disappointed. Suddenly Jack Ryan is just starting out at the CIA as an analyst? Wasn't that back around 'Hunt For Red October'? He hasn't even gotten married yet? His wife suspecting him of cheating was a major part of the plot. How can she suspect him of cheating if she hasn't even married him yet? This story takes place AFTER 'Clear and Present Danger', yet we have all these inconsistencies? I just can't understand why this movie got such a high rating in the first place... To me, this was a sellout from the beginning, and I can't believe Clancy gave his blessing on this. If he felt that Harrison Ford was getting too old, there was much more he could have done, and still saved the integrity of the series. Ben Affleck could play a late-twenties/early-thirties hero with no problem, but instead we get an obvious 'money-grab' by hiring the young actor and playing the story to a younger crowd. Who cares that Jack Ryan met 'Mr. Clark' ages ago, and he and Ding Chavez are actually Ryan's bodyguards by this point? And by the way, how come Jack Ryan's 'wireless internet' PDA was working after 1: a nuclear blast that would have most likely caused an EMP blast knocking out such silly things as cell-phone towers?, and 2: How was it connecting to the internet with no wireless plug in card or anything to make an ordinary PDA bluetooth compatible? Personally, I would give this movie a 1.

If you've read the book, prepare to vomit.

[rickert · 1/10 · 7 May 2002]

Hunt For Red October is still the only film of a Clancy novel that has remained remotely faithful to the original. The very things that make the books popular (multiple dense story lines) make them impossible for the most part to film. The Sum Of All Fears is the latest example of this. They pretty much took the title of the film and a couple of scenes, names of characters, and made a different film. Setting it in the present doesn't help, changing Arab terrorsts to neo nazi's is completely ridiculous, taking the family aspect out of Jack Ryan's character diminishes his depth. Clancy is somewhere counting the dollars, and I know that previously (Patriot Games) he has refused to let them use his name in advertising, but dang. Affleck's acting is adequate, but he will never be able to get past the fact that he's Ben Affleck. He has plenty of charisma, but none of the intelligence and depth of a Ford or Alec Baldwin. Whenever he tries to be intense, it's the same facial moves and vocal moves that he's used in stuff like Mallrats. Ah well. Luckily it was a free preview. Didn't have to waste any money.

I know Jack Ryan and Ben is no Jack Ryan

[hec424 · 21 April 2003]

I didn't notice who was responsible for casting, but they made a huge mistake in casting Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. I heard about him inheriting the role from Harrison Ford for some reason, but my first choice would have been to go back to Alec Baldwin, who did an excellent job in the Hunt for Red October. Morgan Freeman, usually brilliant, also seems to be thrown into this movie incorrectly. The story was convincing, but again star power doesn't necessarily translate into great story telling. Let Ben continue to do the romantic comedies and action movies, but leave the strong serial characters to someone who can truly embody the role.

Not good

[ThomasColquith · 4/10 · 26 June 2021]

Something about this film just doesn't work; it drags and is irritating. I had never saw this film until now cause I heard it wasn't great and sure enough it wasn't. It seemed like it should be good, but it just wasn't. Failed in so many ways: not enough development of the villains and their plans, not enough time spent searching for the bomb at the game, did not even show how the bomb went off, terrorists just hanging out at the docks, can't text message information, too much time showing non-central actors, etc. Etc. If you want to see a good film of this genre watch "The Peacemaker" (I rate 9/10) from which "Sum" stole the line about being scared of the guy who wants just one nuke. So, 4/10.

Exciting, just don't think about it too much

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 3 October 2009]

Ben Affleck has a go at playing Jack Ryan, the Tom Clancy hero, in "The Sum of All Fears," a 2003 film also starring Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Liev Schreiber, Alan Bates, and Bridget Moynihan. I'll admit I'm not familiar with the books, but it does seem that either the screenwriter or Clancy made this an earlier story - by Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, Jack, Harrison Ford in those films, is married to Cathy; here, they're just dating. Also, Affleck is younger than Ford. That's odd, because this film seems to be cashing in on 9/11, so it should really be after the other films...so I'm confused.

That's what I mean about this movie - I enjoyed it, but it's one of those things that, if you think about it, makes very little sense. Here, some sort of Nazi splinter group has purchased an old bomb and is making the Russians think that the U.S. has attacked them and vice versa. Amidst the chaos of a huge atomic explosion that wipes out a stadium, it's up to Jack to reach someone in power before they push the red button and each country wipes out the other, leaving the world free for - who, Germany? - to take over. Not that there will be much left.

There's a lot of action, and the movie goes fast enough so that you don't notice the holes right away.

Affleck is likable, but you'll have a hard time lining him up with the Jack Ryan of Ford. Alec Baldwin has also played Jack; that's maybe a closer comparison. James Cromwell is terrific as a no-nonsense President; Morgan Freeman underplays and is very good.

People that have read the book hate this movie, so if you've read the book, I wouldn't bother seeing this.

total crap

[geddyneilalex28 · 5/10 · 29 July 2003]

i hated everything about this movie. many others have said already what the problems are, the timeline is off. sure the book is always better, but at least get the story right. also, i have a rule, if i can whip your butt, you can't be a superhero. Ben is a wuss, and should stick to movies with j lo.

Watch this movie for Morgan Freeman's performance

[philip_vanderveken · 6/10 · 22 June 2005]

A nuclear war! Ever since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan, all people fear it. During the Cold War period (1945-1990), many movies were made in which the Americans had to fight off the USSR. Think for instance of "Top Gun", one of the most popular movies about this subject at that time. But even today the fear for nuclear attacks hasn't diminished. Today they fear extremists and terrorists rather than the Russians and that's exactly the idea on which the story of this movie was based.

"The Sum of All Fears" starts with the sudden death of the Russian President. He is quickly succeeded by a man whose politics are virtually unknown to Washington. The CIA is convinced that he is a hardliner and because the United States is very critical of the Russians' treatment of Chechneya, they fear the man. And their fear becomes truth when the Russian President tells them that Chechneya is an internal issue and none of their concern. CIA analyst Jack Ryan, who did research on the man, doesn't think he is a hardliner, but while Ryan and his boss, Bill Cabot, are inspecting disarmament at a Russian nuclear site, 3 Russian scientists have mysteriously disappeared. Although the Russians have explanations for their absence, none of them are true. In the meantime in Austria, a neo-fascist has developed a frightening plan to incite a war between Russia and the U.S. He will use an unexploded Israeli bomb from the deserts of the Middle East. And than the unimaginable happens: a nuclear bomb explodes in U.S. city and America is quick to blame the Russians...

What I probably liked most about this movie was the acting by Morgan Freeman. That man really is a class of his own. I don't know many other actors who are able to save a rather mediocre movie like this one from complete oblivion. For the rest I don't see many other reasons why you should watch this movie. The rest of the acting is in a range from 'OK' at best to a 'could be worse' and the story is rather far-fetched, although not necessarily unbelievable. Even though I don't consider it to be very likely that a Neo-Nazi group would be able to start a nuclear war between Russia and the U.S., that doesn't mean that a terrorist attack with a 'dirty' bomb isn't possible.

Overall I would say about this movie that Morgan Freeman's performance the best reason to watch it. The rest of the acting isn't very special and the story didn't really do it for me. That's also why I can only give it a 6.5/10.