 |
| |
|
|
red_jon
|
 |
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
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
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
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
|
|
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2002 21:17
But his detailed descriptions .... they make it all worth while.
|