HTF REVIEW: " The Sum Of All Fears" (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[Matt Pasant]

I agree with you 100% Steve.

-- Matt

 

[JosephMoore]

While the terrorists' origins were indeed changed prior to 9-11, the depiction of the bombing and the aftermath were edited (toned-down) considerably afterward. As I understand it, this involved digital re-touching as well as some whole shots being deleted.

This is an important point, because when I saw the film I was a bit underhelmed by the result of the bomb - it was too sterile and wimpy - which hurt the impact of the film. I'm dissappointed that some of the un-edited footage didn't make it onto this DVD.

 

[Robert McClanahan]

This movie sucked in the theater.I left feeling ripped off.It is not worth purchasing in my opinion.Do you all know they (director,studio,etc,etc)changed the bad guys from......to..... for political correctness because of 9/11!!!!:frowning:

 

[David Lambert]

Robert, go back and reread a few posts. The terrorists were change BEFORE the events of 9-11.

As to the rest, we can agree to disagree. My wife and I enjoyed this film IMMENSELY in the theater. Tomorrow we can't wait to get it at Target for just $15.99!

 

[Philip Verdieck]

I will rent not buy. The decision, regardless of the date, was stupid at best. Changed because the couldn't pull it off, well, that's what happened in the book, they didn't achieve fission.

I didn't see the movie yet, but I will rent it for the commentary.

Now, what might have made it a buy, would be if they had included all the deleted scenes they didn't use.

 

[Robert McClanahan]

Yes Dave you are correct.My bad.I still think it was for political reasons though.The movie just didn't seem accurate.I served on two different Aircraft carriers in the 80's and the attack on the carrier in the movie was not an accurate scenario.Maybe I will like it better a second time around on my hometheater.

 

[paul watkins]

anyone think it was too dark?it almost seemed that way to me at times.the scene with the aircraft carrier for one,others too.just wondering if any one thought this.this compared to my avia settings.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

In the book, the Arabs worked with communist East Germans. The director states that neither of these groups would have had the ability to act on their own, and so it was changed in the interests of expediency, not post-9/11 sensitivity.

You wouldn't expect him to come out and say that it was done in an effort to avoid offending the sensibilities of a certain group, would you?

RD

 

[Tim Glover]

I thought it was a little too dark of a transfer, but that's being picky. It looked good though.

At first, I had trouble buying in to it. In fact the first hour I was thinking it was underachieving somewhat, but it slowly got my attention and really was suspenseful and thought provoking. I'm a big fan of Affleck and thought he was good. His personality is more charming than Ford or Baldwin...not sure if this is a more accurate portrayal of Ryan or not, as I will confess of not reading the Clancy novels yet.

 

[Ben Crouse]

just listened to the Clancy commentary track. it's worth the rental price in and of itself. this guy knows his stuff, and it's refreshing to hear him discuss in no uncertain terms what he really thought of the film. apparently alot of inaccuracies throughout, which makes me wonder why they didn't use him in the first place as a consultant when making the movie. ??

fyi, i thought it was still a pretty good flick.

 

[Glenn_Jn]

I thought the picture was a bit too dark as well. Funny that a few have mentioned that but Ron didn't in his review.

I also prefer Alec Baldwin. I like Harrison but I felt he was too old to play Ryan. Maybe 20 years ago yeah. I also think HFRO was the better of the four movies. Ben Affleck was OK.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I also thought Hunt For Red October was the best of the four with The Sum Of All Fears being second. I thought Harrison Ford wasn't suited for the role of Jack Ryan didn't play the part well at all.

 

[Aryn Leroux]

I listened to both commentaries and the subject matter on terrorists being changed was brought up and according to the director they did not change the terrorists from arabs to neo nazis prior to 9/11 like it is thought to be. Things were changed early on in the script because it would be impossible for arabs to get russia involved. so the story would not of worked if the terrorists were arab.

 

[Doug Schiller]

I thought it might be my new DVD player but this movie had some of the worst EE since Die Hard (mostly in the opening titles).

When the jet first takes off, the white letters on against the morning sky were annoyingly surrounded by edge enhancement.

I also saw some posterizing on the faces during candle lit scenes.

I chalked it up to a low bit rate transfer (which it is, ~ 4.8 gigs) but maybe my new player is not set up right.

Doug

 

[David Coleman]

I feel that the transfer quality is lacking. Yes, it is too dark to me and though the colors are fairly accurate considering the lighting that was used. It's still lacking in a lot of detail. I noticed that colors seemed to be too saturated and the picture to be a bit soft. Anyone else agree?

Great movie though!!!

 

[gregstaten]

I put this film on last night and was quite pleased with the story. Yes, it was different from the book in many ways but I accepted the adaptation.

However, I wasn't as impressed with the transfer. There was very noticable haloing on all the credits and subtitles. And, I felt that some of the interior scenes, especially the correspondents dinner, were oversaturated and a little red/orange pushed. Finally, there were several times where parts of the image became noticably soft.

But the transfer was still good overall and certainly didn't detract from the story. I do feel, however, that many of the compression artifacts could have been reduced if they hadn't tried to stuff the two hour film and a pretty substantial collection of supplements on one DVD.

-greg

 

[Jeff_HR]

This is an important point, because when I saw the film I was a bit underhelmed by the result of the bomb - it was too sterile and wimpy - which hurt the impact of the film. I'm dissappointed that some of the un-edited footage didn't make it onto this DVD

I too felt that the bomb depiction hurt the impact of the film. That aside, I enjoyed the film.

 

[MikeSh]

I'm a big fan of Clancy's books and am just now sarting to reread Sum. I was dissapointed in the movie for several reasons. Mostly though how much they changed the plot around. I think it was a good movie in and of itself and if I could get over how much they changed things I think I would really like it. But I can't, so I won't buy this one.
Also, I missed Harrison, really wished he was in it.

MikeS.

 

[CaptDS9E]

I finally recieved my copy after all this time. Somehow the copy was lost in the mail. I never read Sum of All Fears for some reason and i guess that may be why i enjoyed the film. From what i heared I thought it would be a so-so film, but i was pleasantly surprised. Its a keeper

capt

 

[DeanR]

I liked this movie. It was too dark on my calibrated non HDTV 4:3 Mitsubishi 60" projection TV. I missed Harrison Ford. Ben Affleck is a good actor but I didn't feel he was right for this movie. I thought he was better in Changing Lanes . I didn't know Baltimore had a doomed football stadium . They used Montreal's Olympic Stadium which a lot of people would like seen blown up . Why was Florida playing Chicago in Baltimore? Was it supposed to be a Super Bowl? Anyway, I will probably pick this up.