The Sum of All Fears

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Decent movie. I didn't actually read the book so I probably liked it more than if I had read it. Anyway, timely topic if nothing else. It was eerie. The theatre wasn't that crowded but when they showed the mushroom cloud you could hear a pin drop in there.



I think the explosion in the movie was considerably more than what a so called "dirty bomb" would do (at least as I envision it), but who's to say? I just hope these bastards don't ever get a hold of an old 20MT Russian warhead - God knows the security around them for the past 15 years or so has probably been lax. And that the guys on the security detail are almost certainly poor / vulnerable to someone offering them a better life.



In general, thinking if one ever did make it aboard a freighter bound for the US - we'd never see it coming.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    The love story was unconvincing.



    The President should have been badly wounded or something.



    We should have seen the faces of the generals who launched strikes without Russian say so. At least at the end when the spy was out killing the perps.l
  • Reply 2 of 13
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Yah. For once I wish they could make a movie like this without *any* freaking love story. There's nothing particularly romantic about the subject-matter. And can someone explain why Alec Baldwin wasn't used for this role? He was decent enough in Red October.



    Now that I think of it, didn't Harrison Ford play Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger? My recollection was that Ryan's life was depicted more or less chronologically in the books, as they were released. So if Red October was the first one (and it was, at least of the movies made), then Afleck was a bad choice for Sum of All Fears, because Ryan would actually be older, not younger than he was with Red October.



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 3 of 13
    havanashavanas Posts: 99member
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs:

    I think the explosion in the movie was considerably more than what a so called "dirty bomb" would do (at least as I envision it), but who's to say? <hr></blockquote>



    A "dirty bomb" is radioactive material wrapped around conventional explosives (C4, TNT) and detonated to cause radiactive poisoning (no giant fireball or pressure wave). Haven't seen the movie yet, but is was my impression that the bomb used is a low-yeild nuke and not a dirty bomb.
  • Reply 4 of 13
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 5 of 13
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Forget what the movie COULD have been.

    Forget what you think the movie will be like.

    Forget it.



    How was the movie?
  • Reply 6 of 13
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    It's basically a prequel story-wise, but a sequel chronogically. In The Sum of All Fears, Ryan is a newbie CIA agent. In Clear and Present Danger, he's high enough to be substituting as Deputy Director of Intelligence.



    The bomb in the movie was a low-yield nuke originally put on an Israeli jet in 1973, much smaller than what we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not a dirty bomb.



    I'm just waiting for the John Clark character to get his own movie(s.) His character was played by Willem Dafoe in Clear and Present Danger.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    The nuke itself wasn't from the Israeli jet, just the plutonium. The three Russian scientists designed a new shell / detonator for it before it was shipped to the US. Anyway, as a couple people have noted, the dirty bomb concept is much less a danger that what transpired in the movie. I just wasn't sure if a "dirty bomb" could also be a re-purposed nuke such as the one in the movie.



    Dispersing radioactive materials via conventional explosion (even a big one) isn't nearly as serious as even a small nuclear explosion, so that was why I brought it up initially.



    Anyway, I have no doubt most people like the movie more if they don't have any pre-conceived notions from the book. It clearly doesn't follow it all that closely.



  • Reply 8 of 13
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>It's basically a prequel story-wise, but a sequel chronogically. In The Sum of All Fears, Ryan is a newbie CIA agent. In Clear and Present Danger, he's high enough to be substituting as Deputy Director of Intelligence.



    The bomb in the movie was a low-yield nuke originally put on an Israeli jet in 1973, much smaller than what we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not a dirty bomb.



    I'm just waiting for the John Clark character to get his own movie(s.) His character was played by Willem Dafoe in Clear and Present Danger.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    THE BOOK:

    Nope, the original WAS in sequence. Ryan was higher up than that in the organization -- he may have already been Deputy Director of Intelligence by that time. Or National Security Advisor. He and the Scott Adler character (an underling at State) came up with the idea for securing Jerusalem and defusing the conflict there at the beginning of that book. That's one of the things that sets off the ARAB terrorists that try to blow up the SuperBowl. They're aided by a Native American terrorist in this country.



    The bomb turned out to be a "fizzle," or a partial detonation (mainly the detonation of the primary) because the terrorists decided to kill their East German nuclear physicist before he had completed one final step. It didn't really do a lot of damage in the book.



    Also in the book, the President (Fowler) went kerfluey and almost nuked Iran.



    Finally, the best part of the book was where the terrorists were captured and taken to Saudi Arabia to stand trial under Islamic law. They were executed with a big sword. Cool.



    It's a good book, though scary.



    THE MOVIE:

    Pretty good. The only way they could resurrect the Ryan character at this point is to get a younger guy. The movie is a mish-mash of about 5 Clancy plot devices, but I liked it. The bomb detonation was really really scary.



    ALEC BALDWIN:

    I suggest that the reason he wasn't hired for this was because of his horrendous acting skills and he's a Leftist Pinko type. I can't stand to watch him -- Pearl Harbor was PAINFUL.



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 13
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]ALEC BALDWIN:

    I suggest that the reason he wasn't hired for this was because of his horrendous acting skills and he's a Leftist Pinko type. I can't stand to watch him -- Pearl Harbor was PAINFUL.<hr></blockquote>



    So true, so true ...
  • Reply 10 of 13
    _ alliance __ alliance _ Posts: 2,070member
    ugh...

    dont even get me started on pearl harbor. i think that is the worst excuse for a movie ive had to sit through in a few years...

    what an insult to an event that changed everything...
  • Reply 11 of 13
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    finboy, yeah, I was just talking about the movies. Notice how John Clark's character turns from grizzled old Dafoe to smooth-faced Lieve Schreiber.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>finboy, yeah, I was just talking about the movies. Notice how John Clark's character turns from grizzled old Dafoe to smooth-faced Lieve Schreiber.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I see.



    You're right about Clark. They might have done that to open up the prospect for more movies about Clark, too.



    I can hardly wait for "Without Remorse" to be made into a picture: ex-Navy Seal hunts and kills drug dealers and pimps for "practice" and revenge. My idea of a good time onscreen (of course I would NEVER advocate something like that in real life).
  • Reply 13 of 13
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    What - killing drug dealers and pimps for fun? I think everyone should do it. But let's not limit ourselves to drug dealers and pimps. Child molesters (ex-priests included) should be on the list, for one.
Sign In or Register to comment.