Michael B. Jordan to Play Tom Clancy's John Clark
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
Might have given it a watch if they'd stuck to the original story (even if they omitted the sojourn to South East Asia) but as it stands this is sold skip.
Though have to admit it would have been seen as derative (and even with the modernised story line given recent movies such as the Liam Niesen ones).
But then I suppose the same could be said of the original book.
Though have to admit it would have been seen as derative (and even with the modernised story line given recent movies such as the Liam Niesen ones).
But then I suppose the same could be said of the original book.
It was okay. An enjoyable enough movie but doesn't really stand out as awesome or a Must See or anything like that. The book was definitely better, but then that's pretty much true of every Clancy book to be turned into a movie.
I'm probably still going to check it out at some point, but I'm not in a huge rush given almost every review/comment I've seen
I watched the movie today. Some of the action scenes seemed a bit dark on my TV which things hard to see sometimes. The movie itself was pretty decent. I enjoyed it. Michael B Jordan was really good. The action scenes were well done. The plot was pretty thin IMO.
Basically, it was all a set-up by the CIA to start a war between Russia and the US. Why would the CIA want to do that? Well, the villain turned out to be the Secretary (Defense?) who believes that American politics is too divisive and tribal with the Right hating the Left. So the US needs a common enemy in order to unify. And in his opinion, the best time when the US was unified was during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was the enemy. So if the US and Russia go to war, the country will put aside petty political differences and unify again and achieve greatness. Basically the villain confesses everything right before he dies in a final monologue. It did feel a bit cliche IMO.
With how generic and thin this movie is, in the '90s it would've starred Steven Seagal and been titled Out for Revenge.
This could've just as easily been a low-budget DTV with Bruce Willis in the Guy Pearce role (which would limit the character to one room, possibly sitting down every scene) and starring any number of TV actors or former teen heartthrobs who don't get leading man movie offers.
This could've just as easily been a low-budget DTV with Bruce Willis in the Guy Pearce role (which would limit the character to one room, possibly sitting down every scene) and starring any number of TV actors or former teen heartthrobs who don't get leading man movie offers.
So other than the main character's name and seeking revenge it has bugger all to do with the book.
Correct.
More or less, yeah. There are a few other character names reused, though they have practically nothing in common with their namesakes in the book, and some plot elements are reused, for one non-spoiler example, the movie has a scene with Clark stalking the streets at night pretending to be a drunk bum much as he does in the book. But over all, yeah, the book and the movie might as well be two different stories altogether.
Very disappointing. The big action scene in the Russian building was dark. It was hard to see what was happening.
Other than Red October these Clancy adaptations are pretty disappointing.
Other than Red October these Clancy adaptations are pretty disappointing.
Agreed. I wish they had adapted the novel Rainbow Six. A mutinational group of the most elite special ops soldiers deploying to various locations around the world to rescue hostages or take down criminals or terrorists, would make a great action movie. I also wish they had adapted the novel Debt of Honor and Executive Orders. Those were great novels. Although I imagine Debt of Honor might be controversial today with our friendship with Japan since it involved a crazy Japanese business man who resents Japan losing WW2 and plotting a second Pearl Harbor style attack. But it made for a great movie, especially the cliffhanger ending which I think led into Executive Orders.
Honestly, I think Clancy novels are hard to adapt to movies. The books are very long with a lot of detail, a lot of characters, and a lot of interconnecting threads. There will be the White House, Jack Ryan, some strangers somewhere who happen to be in the wrong place and the wrong time, a submarine off the coast of Africa, the 5th Fleet, some special forces in a secret recon mission, the Russian government, the Chinese government, some Chinese businessmen involved in the terrorist group, the terrorist group plotting, etc... And everything is interconnected in a complex web. It is part of what makes the novels so engaging IMO. But capturing all that detail and all those different characters in a 2+ hour movie is hard. Inevitably, the movie has to cut things out and strip it down to a more basic plot. But that takes away a lot of the intricacies and world-building.
Indeed, which is why I think Red October is the only one which also excelled as a movie. Yes, the book still has all the same mosaic storytelling of various subplots and side characters that contribute to the greater narrative in their own way, but the basic core story about a Russian sub with officers who want to defect can be told within a two hour time frame without losing too much of the story, though even there the movie didn't really elaborate too much on why Ramius was disillusioned with Soviet Russia and wanted to defect to America beyond a vague reference to a dead wife whereas in the book you learn it's the circumstances behind why she died and the immediate aftermath that sent him on this path.
The other books to be adapted as movie weren't as easy to convert into two hour scripts, even after you trim much of the padding Clancy books tend to have. Patriot Games really just feels like a rush job over the book's plot points, as does Clear and Present Danger. The Sum of All Fears is rather difficult to follow unless you're already familiar with the book's plot.
If anything it's kind of ironic the Jack Ryan TV series is telling original stories, since that's a format which adapting the books could actually benefit from since you could include all the various side characters and subplots and whatnot.
Yeah, I remember the book being much more gripping than the movie. For one, the book went into a lot more depth with the set-up as we see the pieces come together, leading up to the climax of the nuke going off. When the nuke goes off, it is a true WTF moment in the book. Clancy even pads the book with a lot of nuclear physics to describe exactly what is happening inside the nuke when it detonates. Then, the book handles the escalation to almost nuclear war much better than the movie. Reading the book, I was on the edge of my seat, absolutely terrified, as both countries get closer and closer to DEFCON 1. The book has a lot of additional scenes where we see tensions flare up. There is a scene where the terrorists use some soviet tanks to attack an American base in Germany to further escalate tensions. The movie really rushed the rising tensions so it was not as impactful.
Agreed.
Absolutely. I think they should have done Without Remorse as more a mini series. Some of the books may have been quite suitable for a mini series (but also too detailed for films) but some would have been great as a series. (Cardinal comes to mind for a mini series for example).
Looks like I missed the post credit scene that sets up Rainbow Six. So we might actually get a Rainbow Six movie. That would be really cool. I hope it happens.