The Sum of All Fears

reviewed by Dave

You'd think I'd have learned my lesson about buying movies I hadn't seen yet. Occasionally it works in my favor - I bought Lilo & Stitch sight unseen and it's my favorite animated Disney movie - but sometimes I end up with stuff like the Royal Tenenbaums (which had so much potential, but ended up throwing it all away).

I recently threw caution to the wind once again and picked up The Sum of All Fears (it was, I can at least argue, on sale). Not only was it sight unseen, it's also a movie based on a book. With a few small exceptions (Lord of the Rings, umm… okay that's it) movies usually aren't as good as the books they're based on. Occasionally the book and the movie can somewhat complement each other (Big Trouble), But in most cases (The Sum of All Fears), the movie is hurt by drawing from a book people are familiar with.

So let's get this out of the way: Those familiar with the Jack Ryan novels written by Tom Clancy are going to be a bit disappointed with the film's handling of the story. I understand that you're going to have to cut a bit to make the events of a 900-page book fit into a 2-hour movie. Even if you filter out all the gratuitous description of jets, ships, subs, guns, etc. etc., the plots are still convoluted enough to be challenging to adapt to film.

I've read The Sum of All Fears, along with most of the Jack Ryan novels, and there are a lot of things about the film that are off the book, and it's usually not for the better. The Arab Anti-Defamation League successfully lobbied to change the villains in this story to a group of neo-Nazis. Maybe that's okay, but what's not okay is how the film brushes over the villains. "They're Nazis," the film seems to be saying, "what else do you need to know." Clancy does a good job of setting up villains and foils for Ryan in his books, but this is a bit pathetic.

I also found it really weird that, though the movie is an obvious prequel to the films starring Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford, The Sum of All Fears apparently is supposed to be taking place today. So I guess there isn't a timeline to the movies like there is with the books?

Speaking of Baldwin and Ford, another problem with the film is the lead actor. Though Ben Affleck shows that he has grown as an actor, that unmistakable bad-acting Affleck stench still pops up occasionally to make sure you remember this is the guy from Armageddon (the movie, not the event). For most of the film his delivery didn't make me cringe, and I guess that's progress, but Affleck's tiny feet have some very big shoes to fill by taking up the role first portrayed by Baldwin, but ultimately made famous by Ford. Affleck just doesn't have the depth and range of those guys.

It's a testament to the subject matter, the author, and the supporting actors that The Sum of All Fears manages to even remotely succeed in spite of its lead actor. Morgan Freeman does a fine job with what little he has, and most of the other supporting actors are good. There's enough intrigue and as the film hits the final act, things are moving fast enough to keep you interested.

But there's just a feeling of tiredness to the whole thing. Recast the title role, add in a half hour that's devoted to some actual character development, go ahead and make the plot a tad more convoluted, and you'd have something that more accurately mirrors the book and goes further to satisfying Clancy fans.

As it stands, The Sum of All Fears is the kind of movie you watch once and probably never see again. There are worse movies out there, but that doesn't mean you want to waste your time with this kind of mediocrity, either.