This is topic Sum of all Fears in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000325
Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 05-31-2002, 03:34 AM:
Screened this tonite. I've never read the book, or any of Tom Clancy's books before, nor have I seen any of the films in the Jack Ryan series, but after this I will definitely have to check them out.
The beginning started off somewhat slow, with an excessive amount of jerky camera movements, so much to the point that I about went up to check the gate and shoe tension, until I saw a steady scene. A lot of build up to show that government officials don't trust Ryan's opinion (multitude of dramatic irony throughout), proving a very valuable plot point towards the end. About half-way through, the pace quickened and became a really great film. Perhaps what makes this film is the fact that, with recent events, this could very well happen, probably with harsher results. Ben Affleck pulls off the character of Jack Ryan very well. Great performances as well by James Cromwell, Morgan Freeman, Liev Schrieber (sp?), and many others whose names I don't know.
As noted earlier, the camera work was a bit shoddy in the beginning, but I noticed the shakiness less as the film went on. The sound was great, and I ran it .6 higher than usual for the house (6.0), plan on trying it 1.0 higher. Noticed some of the same negative scratching as on About A Boy that I directed in a post in FHF, but for just a second. Noticed some horrible cinch scratching after the helicopter crash for a few seconds, don't know if lab or build-up fault.7.7/10
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-31-2002, 03:39 AM:
I noticed the same scratches.
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-31-2002, 04:54 AM:
I enjoyed this one. IMHO, one of the better Clancy movies. I noticed those scratches as well, so it must be on the negative.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2002, 08:42 AM:
During one shot of this movie I even saw what looked like diagonal platter scratches. TONS of negative scratches on this movie and the cinematographer was apparently on crack. A large part of this movie looked horrible from a technical standpoint. I thought the sound mix was poorly done for the first half of the movie, then hit and miss from scene to scene on the last half.As to a review: "eh" <tilts hand side to side> It was alright, nothing great. Same old crap really.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2002, 09:55 AM:
Brad said: "TONS of negative scratches on this movie"I wonder if they did a re-edit after 9-11, and had to recut the original negative, resulting in much more handling since cement splices would have to be taken apart and remade? Still, they would normally make a wet-gate master positive if the original negative was scratched.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2002, 10:03 AM:
Just a month ago the film was a 7 reeler. Rumor has it that Deluxe sent out a trade screeneing print with two reel 2s and no reel 3, even though they were labeled as reel 2 and 3 (or something to that extent). No one on the production told Paramount the film was now a reel shorter and the two "missing reels" were replaced from an earlier version, causing overlap of scenes and missing scenes because the reel changes were now at different spots and the theater did not pre-screen it. All in all, it was apparently a huge disaster, but like I said I don't know specifically what all happened.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-31-2002, 09:50 PM:
05/31/2002, Cinemark 17, Springfield OR, 12:35PM, #9, DTS. Attendance about 150. Very good presentation, no flaws worth mentioning. Also no ads or PSAs for a change 
.I liked it a lot. The story takes on a very real feeling post-Sept. 11th. Like "This could happen", which is kind of scary (to state the obvious). This is the first movie with Ben Affleck where I actually liked his performance - he is very good as Jack Ryan. And it has the "Morgan Freeman is in it so it probably doesn't suck" factor going for it too. All the supporting actors are also good, the story moves along nicely, and the effects & sound are done well. Quite believable & effective.
I saw the negative scratches, and signs of negative dirt, but both were very brief. Don't recall any other obvious flaws, but that could be because I was into the movie (for once). Brad, is your comment on the cinematography referring to the scenes after the nuke goes off, some of which look way over-exposed? Surely those were intentional.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2002, 12:18 AM:
Yes to those scenes as well as others. I have a hard time believing some of that overexposure was intentional, when they would cut between a nicely photographed shot and one that appeared to have been shot by a first timer.While I'm thinking about it, I wish someone would explain to these people that the "home video" look has long since been overdone. Remember the scene with the big boys sitting around the conference table? The cameraman must've been having a seizure. I know the theory here is to create "style" and "tension", but all it does is distract and make me think the director is a newbie who is desperatly trying to make a stylized movie.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-15-2002, 12:38 AM:
Holy Cats, what a movie. This is the best I've seen in some time. The only thing I found a little less than desirable was that they could have used a little more mature actor for Ryan. Otherwise, I give this film "all the stars" out of "all the stars". I just love it when I feel like I'm not in control, and this one did just that. I had the "this can't be happening" feeling through half the film, even though I knew it was coming. It was completely believable for me, and the effects were great, without being the reason for the movie, if you know what I mean. Go see it.------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/