Replies

Lot`sa folks are forgetting other parts of the book like the IDF officer that murders a Palestian protester, the fact that Israeli planes would fly with nukes, and how the book ends,Jerusalem controlled by a tripart made up of Jews, Arabs, and Christians. No way that could be made into a movie in this country.

Lot`sa folks are forgetting other parts of the book like the IDF officer that murders a Palestian protester, the fact that Israeli planes would fly with nukes, and how the book ends,Jerusalem controlled by a tripart made up of Jews, Arabs, and Christians

That's how it began. The book ends with the Saudis executing the terrorists according to Islamic Law.

Clancy's books show that while he respects the Israelis, he sees that they have serious flaws and he also has a great deal of respect for the Saudis.

-Eric

Lot`sa folks are forgetting other parts of the book like the IDF officer that murders a Palestian protester,
I believ he killed someone he thought was a terrorist.
the fact that Israeli planes would fly with nukes, and how the book ends,Jerusalem controlled by a tripart made up of Jews, Arabs, and Christians.
1. What is so bad about Israeli planes with nukes. The USAF lost a nuke off Charleston. Besides, the book makes it clear that this was an accident in war. In 1973, only one Brigade held the Syrian Army from crossing into Israel. Things were desperate. Supposedly Israeli had nuclear weapons loaded. That is the basis for the events.
Supposedly, A-4 skyhawk is loaded with a nuke instead of a fuel tank. It is shot down and a few yeras later a Syrian Druze finds the bomb in his field and gives it to a stand-0in for Hizbullah.

2. The Partition is under the UN supported by American troops with the Vatican controling Jerusalem. It is far to stupid to offend anyone.

No way that could be made into a movie in this country.
The Jewish conspiracy to whitewash Islamists strikes again?

the fact that Israeli planes would fly with nukes

Actually, this was in the movie. In fact, this fact played an important role in the entire movie's re-written, yet decent plot.

I saw the movie this afternoon, and if this story was not linked to a Tom Clancy book with the same name, although very different plot, it would still be a good movie. The very fact that the plot is NOT believable makes for a good fictional story involving a nuclear attack.

If they had made the movie as Tom Clancy wrote it, it may not have ever been released. Even the Bush administration complained about the timing and content of this movie. (Tom Clancy's book is great, and may end up being predominately non-fiction.)

Over all, I would give the movie 2.5 stars out of four. It was very suspenseful, action-packed, and presented a good story, which works quite well to engage the viewer. Ben Affleck is no Harrison Ford, but "Sum of All Fears" was still quite entertaining.