Not to mention the logical reaction of the two world leaders in a situation like this. I won't give it away, but this did not portray the logical reaction.
The Sum of All Fears
by patio34 21 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Hmmm
Minor to Moderate Spoilers. Skip this post if you don't want to know what happens in the movie.
..
.
Six,
They really screwed up the continuity by setting it in 2002. The story was originally set during the height of the Cold War. I think the reactions of the two leaders would be much more believable during the 80s, but not now.
This also fouls up the whole romance. How can Ryan be in his late 30s, and be married with children in the 80s (Patriot Games), then be in his mid 30s and just wooing his wife in 2002?
And in Clear And Present Danger, which happens in the mid-to-late 90s, Ryan meets John Clark. Then in Sum of All Fears, in 2002, he's meeting the guy for the first time.
As for him being the one to figure it all out. Well he is an expert on Russia and its leaders. He is also pretty darn low in the chain of cammand, so even when Cabbot (Morgan Freeman) is out of action, the US command circle wouldn't listen to a junior analyst who had already seemingly made a big boo-boo.
Just my take
-
WildHorses
If Morgan Freeman is in it, it's sure to be good. Ben ain't so bad himself. He's a cutie.
Lilacs
-
teejay
Six and Hmmm,
Y’all highlight one of the advantages I have over most people when it comes to movie-going:
Six is all-too realistic and rational and critiques how folks on the screen are inferior to the way real-life personalities MIGHT (or even should) react to global threats; Hmmm has read the books and compares the cinematic performances to those that exist on the writer’s page (and, ultimately, those in his own mind). After all, everyone knows that the book is always better.
I, on the other hand, go into the theater with a blank mental slate. No matter what I “expected” going in, I give the filmmakers a lot of leeway to tell their story their way. I only hope and ask that they be competent in putting on a believable tale... well acted; well filmed; with intelligent dialog. I don’t think that’s too much to ask from an industry that’s been at it for three quarters of a century.
No... I haven’t read any of Clancy’s books and, no... in the context of the film, I don’t see the world’s leaders as even trying to represent our present day Bush or Putin. I only see them (the film’s American and Russian leaders) as ordinary (albeit powerful) men with families.... meaning children – THEIR children – and how such men might LIKELY respond to a pivotal decision that would very likely alter the lives of their own offspring.
When world-altering decisions have to be made (as presented in “Sum”) I hope that the two most powerful political figures would doubt global decisions of their own making; question whether they were doing the right thing; get into loud, verbal arguments with their most trusted advisors; and then, in the crux of the moment, stop and renege on an earlier made decision.
I hope they’d fight their machismo and the masculine hormones that usually moves men in that position to flex their political muscles.
I hope.
-
Satanus
bttt
-
LB
Well if ya nitpick a movie you'll find few you enjoy.
We saw it last night and enjoyed it a lot. Might even purchase it when it comes out on DVD.
Never Squat With Yer Spurs On -
SixofNine
I, on the other hand, go into the theater with a blank mental slate. No matter what I "expected" going in, I give the filmmakers a lot of leeway to tell their story their way. I only hope and ask that they be competent in putting on a believable tale... well acted; well filmed; with intelligent dialog. I don't think that's too much to ask from an industry that's been at it for three quarters of a century.
Actually, that's a very good description of my attitude going into a movie. Very few people I know of saw both My Dinner With Andre and Waiting For Guffman (dinner at Mcdonalds to anyone who gets the connection). Fewer still saw and enjoyed both of those movies and still couldn't wait to see the Charlie's Angels movie.
When world-altering decisions have to be made (as presented in "Sum" I hope that the two most powerful political figures would doubt global decisions of their own making; question whether they were doing the right thing; get into loud, verbal arguments with their most trusted advisors; and then, in the crux of the moment, stop and renege on an earlier made decision.
I hope they'd pick up the phone and talk to each other, sharing meaningful information towards their common goal of not obliterating the earth. Bet they would too.I hope they'd fight their machismo and the masculine hormones that usually moves men in that position to flex their political muscles.
-
teejay
I was thinking about “Sum” today (and yesterday... and the day before that). Mainly, I was thinking about the ending. It *is* a little hokey but, believe it or not, folks at the theater actually clapped when the movie ended. It surprised me a little. I remember people clapping at the end of movies years ago when I was a kid, but not lately.
THAT is what I was thinking about – the ending, and the clapping. There was relief after a scary scenario: the bad guys lost and the good guys won. Just like in an old 1960s Western. Even though I couldn’t erase those nagging realizations of life today, I still left the place feeling good anyway, thinking that... maybe... hopefully... in the end good *will* win.
p.s. Six, I ain’t gonna argue witchu on this, but I totally agree with you where you said that “I hope they’d pick up the phone and talk.” Me, too.
But, I doubt that’d happen. Don’t mean to get political, but following 9/11, the fact is Bush’s mission has been one more of “Search and Destroy” rather than “Hey, Dude, Let’s Talk / What’s Your Problem?” From Day One, that has been my greatest aggravation with our approach to 9/11. I mean, why can’t we TALK first - for 15 minutes - before bringing out the big guns? We will still have the guns... right?
With a hawk (Bush) at the helm, it’s my thought that if it’s decided that Russia (these days: “al Quaeda”) goes proactive, we WILL respond in kind – force for force... flexing muscles... proving our manhood. There’d be no phone calls.
That’s exactly the way it played out in the movie.
-
LB
following 9/11, the fact is Bush’s mission has been one more of “Search and Destroy” rather than “Hey, Dude, Let’s Talk / What’s Your Problem?” From Day One,
Please, have you even thought about that? I mean talk to Osama?
You are dealing with hatred here my friend. There is no negotiating at all. Blast Bush all you want, but these aren't people you can deal with. They want terror and that's it.
Never Squat With Yer Spurs On -
patio34
Hi LB,
Your point seems well taken, it seems to me. Because in the film, the terrorists were not able, nor would be, reasoned with and talked to. That is the part comparable to Osama bin Laden, the Nazi terrorists. There would be no negotiating with terrorists, as seen with the swift justice (executions) at the end of the movie.
Pat