Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

This is topic Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit 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=002015

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-21-2014, 03:16 AM:

It was the Sunday evening show at the Big House at a local theater. It was virtually deserted, seating only a handful of people, including me and my girlfriend. I must be honest, there wasn't a huge deal of excitement see this movie either, we counted our chances and those of a misfire were rated higher. The presentation itself, although, went down flawlessly.

For those who forgot who Jack Ryan is: It's a staple Tom Clancy character, being featured in many books and filmed adaptations. He's so good at being a hero, he even deserves to be in the title...

This movie although, is not based on a Tom Clancy book, it's just another reboot, using the Jack Ryan character in a modern setting as background.

He, our hero, is a seemingly bright PhD student, but after witnessing the 9/11 attacks, he decides it's time to do something for his country so he enlists. After almost being shot to pieces in Afghanistan, he falls in love with his rehabilitation physician. Jack decides that he always wanted to be an analyst, but who wouldn't be convinced to join the CIA as undercover agent if Kevin Costner himself invited you to do so?

The script is just standard 13-in-a-dozen Hollywood fare: Car chase: check, unbelievable computer hacking: check, cliched love story: check, I could go on for a while... It must have been lying around, catching dust somewhere since the mid 90's. After being rediscovered during one of the last Spring cleanings, it must have been passed to some of the most mediocre screenwriters with the task of resetting this thing in a "contemporary setting".

Chris Pine might be a somewhat believable James T. Kirk Jr., but he sure isn't as believable as some kind of undercover CIA agent. His single-dimensionally written character probably also doesn't help.

On a side-note: The cinematography also sucks. This movie switches from soft, grainy 35mm shots to razor sharp digital ones in the blink of an eye and also throws a lot of unnecessary shaky cam in the mix.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-21-2014, 09:32 AM:

I saw the movie, was good for the first hour and then it all fell apart in the last 30 minutes. I can see why the movie was dumped into the January time slot.

I saw the movie in Dolby Atmos, or did I? It was advertised in Dolby Atmos with immersive sound and crystal clear digital images in a custom designed auditorium that some might call perfection but Cineplex in fact calls it Ultra AVX. The movie was wonderfully presented with no masking which sucked as usual but I am getting use to it so I am starting to not really care about it anymore.

Chris Pine was not very good as Jack Ryan. This might of been the first time I have seen the director play the bad guy in a movie.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-21-2014, 11:28 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I saw the movie in Dolby Atmos, or did I?

The movie doesn't have an Atmos track...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2014, 10:21 PM:

I watched about 30 seconds of this movie tonight (the last part of the high-speed scene at the end). Chris Pine rolling out of the back of a van going at least 60 mph and coming up with no more than a "dazed look" was enough to tell me this is just another one of those ridiculous, over-the-top, physics-ignoring, eardrum-busting noise-fests. So that was enough for me.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The movie was wonderfully presented with no masking

Well there's a statement that contradicts itself.