New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Hollywood’s big money mission is to make a movie appealing to all four-audience quadrants in order to maximize profits. However, this wide-reach approach can become so obvious that the film disappoints just about everyone it is trying to satisfy (hello, Battleship). Case in point? The Sum of All Fears.

I love having my birthday over Memorial Day weekend, because there is always a great movie to catch (Fast & Furious 6 – the most surprisingly solid franchise in recent film history). The weekend after Memorial Day is consistently dedicated to second-tier blockbusters that studios pump millions of dollars into, but don’t have much confidence in on the advertising front – mostly because the quality is usually less than stellar (anyone else ready to see After Earth bomb?).

These points hold true to The Sum of All Fears. Starring Ben Affleck at the height of his pre-directorial career, Sum has him playing Tom Clancy hero Jack Ryan. In a role previously performed all-around better by Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin in previous films of the franchise (which is being rebooted this Christmas with Trek’s Chris Pine in the role), Affleck is charming but ineffective as a CIA pencil-pusher who comes off second rate to Morgan Freeman’s supporting role as his mentor, a seasoned agency pro.

I would go more into the plot, but quite frankly, it was too hard to follow to even begin describing. It involves Russians, a missing (and then found) nuclear bomb, neo-Nazis, villains with hazy objectives, and good guys that are in the right place at the right time with endless bullets. The money shot of the film involves a nuclear bomb going off at the Superbowl. Released only a few months after 9/11, I’m sure seeing the mass destruction of Baltimore via terrorist attack didn’t have the same entertainment value to it. Luckily, the filmmakers changed the film’s villains from Islamic, like in the book, to neo-Nazi during the script process.

At a dragging two hours, I found myself looking at my DVD’s timer just as intently as Affleck was looking for the terrorists. For a political terrorist thriller, there is really no compelling mystery, mainly for the fact that no one seems to have any incentive to do anything (well, besides saving America from becoming Hiroshima). Oscar nominated scribe Paul Attanasio (Donnie Brasco, Quiz Show) and Daniel Pyne (Any Given Sunday, The Manchurian Candidate remake) are credited for the fairly action-less script that only follows trends rather than set them (besides unsuccessfully trying to bring back Cold War paranoia).

Affleck under his Bennifer moniker at the time seems lost in the role - probably, because he was as confused as I was with what his character exactly did. Why would an office worker be put into the field as an action hero? Who knows? Freeman is fine in his wheelhouse-mentoring role, but is given more to do than usual, being the bright spot of this lackluster film. Bridget Moynahan (remember her?), who had a run in the early ‘00s playing “the girl” in action movies like The Recruit and I, Robot is given a thankless role yet barely rises to the occasion acting wise, half-heartedly flirting with the hero.

The graphics do not hold up at all and the action pieces seem like an afterthought.

The film is competently directed by Phil Alden Robinson (Field of Dreams) who has helmed nothing since this. Robinson got the job after the movie was passed up by a bevy of bigger name directors like the original Jack Ryan film director Phillip Noyce (Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger) and Wolfgang Petersen (In the Line of Fire, Air Force One, Troy). I can only imagine how much more chaotically entertaining one of those directors could have made the film.

Reviewers did not care much for the film, with the Top Critics giving it 49%. On IMDb, the general public also showed indifference, ranking at 6.3 out of 10 (low for the usually inflated ratings on the site).

At a reported budget of $68 million, The Sum of All Fears was not a box office flop like its reviews would have suggested. Opening up on top with $31.2 million ($42.7 million today), The Sum of All Fears had decent legs and topped out at $118.9 million ($162.9 million adjusted). Overseas contributed another $75 million to the pot. While this gross was in line with the other Jack Ryan films, almost 10 years of price inflation since the last pic should have considerably grossed the final tally.

I find the character of Jack Ryan to be interesting – a normal guy whose smarts and drive have put him into extraordinary situations. However, this film sucks out all of the potential fun that could have been. They normalize him to the point that he is mundane and the extraordinary is presented in a way that is just plain preposterous.

The Sum of All Fears is as taut as a shoelace with a plot that is just as thick as one. No one is put at fault for the movie was a box office success, but it certainly was not a franchise re-starter. Even author of the novel Tom Clancy has expressed distaste for the film, and there is really no greater criticism than that.

Eye rolling instead of heart pounding, The Sum of All Fears never gets off the ground.

One final thought: The Sum of All Fears sounds like a great title for a horror movie. Since most people have forgotten about this mess, I think it is time for the name to be repurposed.

Verdict: Not with us

3 out of 10