Jeux de guerre

If I were to make a quick summary of this movie, it would be "a good, but not great, action flick." I don't think this movie was intended to be innovative, to be great, to be memorable. What it was intended to be was entertaining, and it lived up to this expectation.

Harrison Ford is the master of remaining as low-key as possible. He has had so many films where he can over-emphasize, over-dramatize, and simply over-act. Ford has the maturity to keep this from happening, and he does so again in this film. Ford is supported quite well with such actors/actresses as James Earl Jones (reprising his role as Greer from The Hunt for Red October), Samuel L. Jackson, and Anne Archer. For an action flick, acting is much above average.

It was also suspenseful...thrilling. I thought the ending had a nice build-up and climax. I realize this is different from the book's ending...but remember, these are two different visions...not the same one. This brings up a big point in movie-watching: Comparing a movie to a book is the worst thing you can do. They are two completely different genres. More importantly, as I said before, they are two different visions.

I'm not a big action fan. I used to be, but anymore most stories are the same. To this end I would say Patriot Games is fairly mainstream. However, it was always fun to watch and sometimes thrilling to watch. I'm also not a big Tom Clancy fan, but I've given the movies based off his books a shot because again they are different visions. The result is (at least with Patriot Games) a good film to watch on a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn. Don't expect great things, but don't expect to be disappointed, either.

Rating: 7/10

An older retired Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) is in England for a symposium of some nature. While there he witnesses an attempt on the life of a royal by some heavily armed terrorists. Jack goes into superspy mode, even at his advanced age, and takes out two terrorists while holding another at gunpoint.

This action of his makes him a hero in England but he becomes enemy number one to Sean Miller (Sean Bean), an extremist IRA member whose brother was killed by Jack Ryan. Anyone familiar with Sean Bean's cinematic history can figure out what happened to him.

I wasn't feeling this movie for two reasons and two reasons only:

1.) The sheer improbability of an aged, unarmed Jack Ryan getting involved in a terrorist shootout on foreign soil. Especially when his reasoning was "it just pissed me off." It pissed you off? You're a trained C.I.A. agent and former Marine but you can still be motivated to put your life in danger because it pissed you off.

2.) The sheer improbability of Sean Miller and friends being able to have the dearth of resources to commit a terrorist act in England and then safely get to America where they'd have the same resources to track down Jack Ryan and family. Is there no place they can't go?

Outside of these two crater sized pock marks the movie was good. It was a mix of investigative acumen, military technology, and combat skill. The movie was suspenseful as each side tried to stay one move ahead of the other like a high stakes chess match. There was a lot of maneuvering but it definitely was no game.

Clearly Alec Baldwin was too exhausted after his submarine adventure in 1990, so Harrison Ford picked up the mantle of "Jack Ryan" - now a former CIA operative who is on the UK on holiday with his family. Hardly have the titles ended before he is embroiled in an IRA attempt to kidnap "Lord Holmes" (James Fox), a distant cousin of the Queen Mother. Intervening, he kills one of the attackers who happens to be the younger brother of the surviving attacker "Sean" (they kept it simple for Mr Bean). Of course he is sprung from police custody via some dinghies near Tower Bridge and next thing "Ryan" and family are the new targets of this vengeful terrorist cell. What now ensues is a really dry thriller that plods along with little to make it stand out. There is an irony that the IRA man is played by an Englishman, but neither Richard Harris nor Samuel L. Jackson really make much impression on this politically simplistic revenge vehicle for a star who is far from his best. The perilous scenarios rather lurch from frying pan to fire, but never with much jeopardy - before an ending at sea that at least gave the pyrotechnics folks something to do. It's not Tom Clancy's best book, and is really only a passable watch on screen.

I have wanted to see this film for quite a while now. Ive seen The Hunt For Red October(1990), and Clear and Present Danger(1994), and Patriot Games is much better than them. Patriot Games is a great thinking man's thriller, although its much less difficult to follow than "Clear and Present Danger". It has plenty of suspense and action, and Ford's acting is terrific. I am so surprised that Patriot Games is often considered the worst Clancy film, and "The Hunt For Red October" considered the best, but I think it should be the other way around. Overall a great suspenseful movie. 9 out of 10

I think this film's greatness (it is indeed great) is a credit more to Clancy than the film makers, because writing is the most crucial part of any film. Unfortunately, a novel adapted to a film will almost never be as good as the book because there just isn't enough time or money to include everything and make everything look as good as it reads. This is evident here. Having said that they certainly didn't leave it to the story to support itself. Impressive heroics from Ford and a superb bad guy performance from Sean Bean (strikingly similar to his performance in the James Bond film Golden Eye) turned Clancy's classy classic book into a classy film. I was also impressed to discover that the director was none other than Australia's Phillip Noyce. As is also sadly common among films made from books, the plot was a little hard to follow due to the audience having to fill in the gaps that were left by the film makers not having time or money to include it all.