Amazon reboot 'Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan' is flashy, but fans of the original stories may be disappointed
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan” is Amazon Video’s latest release for its Prime subscriber base. The show is billed as a prequel of sorts to the Clancy novels of the 1980s and early 1990s. But despite an opening scene set in the early 1980s prior to the original novels, this is not a true prequel. Instead, it’s a modern day reboot, with a hipster Jack Ryan accidentally analyzing his way into situations in Yemen and the Middle East, instead of Cold War zones.
The show is well crafted, and expensive enough to stand beside its big screen brethren from the 1990s and early aughts, but fans of the long-running franchise may be disappointed by the series’ plotlines, which have been dumbed down, perhaps due to fears that a modern audience would not keep up. This move undermines what could have been a win-win scenario for Amazon. Instead, like most of Amazon’s fare, it winds up another expensive-looking but just so-so show.
Make sure to read comment #1.
Tags
Who is online
282 visitors
Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" came to mind when reading this review. I realize mentioning anything about Ayn Rand would catch most of your attention. And although it does have one of her key themes in it (that being selfish is not negative but positive), it is ultimately, the story of a man who had no talent trying to ruin a true talent, with the power of the pen.
I watched this series and found it thoroughly engaging and well crafted. In many ways, it was better than the big screen versions of Jack Ryan, since it made the CIA believable, as opposed to making them almost bond-like. So, why is it that we listen to reviewers? This phenomenon has happened to me many times, both me going to a highly touted movie only to think it was a piece of garbage ("No Country For Old Men", comes to mind), and those that were really good yet underrated. So why is it that we need reviewers to tell us what we should like? And why do they feel the need to eviscerate a film or series?
Ideas?
I suspect I share your feelings about "No Country For Old Men". It was allright but not what it was cracked up to be imo.
It is very slow except for a few moments of brutal violence. The Coen brothers are darlings of the movie reviewer class the same way Tarantino is. It is an elitist thing. Give me a Clint Eastwood movie like Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby. I also like anything Saoirse Ronan is in. Also , the new Mission Impossible movie is great fun.
I thought the story was boring and convoluted. In fact, the night that I saw it, almost all of the moviegoers that I heard felt the same way.
I agree with you about Clint Eastwood. He made so many great movies. Look at this list and it's just a portion of them: Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Flags of Our Fathers, Letter from IwoJima, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, and one of my all time favorites and totally underrated, A Perfect World.
I think you said it well. There are Hollywood sweethearts that the critics love any piece of garbage from. It's like a case of the Emperor's New Clothes.
I liked all those Clint Eastwood movies. He has a straightforward and uncluttered style as a director that appeals to me, sort of like the way the old timers like John Ford or Frank Capra used to direct.
He's supposed to be directing the next Star Trek movie, and I hear he's asked the studio to allow him to go for an R rating. Ugh.
Wouldn't that be like Alfred Hitchcock making a remake of Bambi?
Worse, IMO.
You are not kidding, Ugh.
Now that is funny!
Well, yeah, Hitchcock had talent.
Bambi comes into the movie riding a horse and, carrying an AK-47 after his mother was murdered in the shower by the crazy guy running the hotel.
Just so.
Also, Bambi actually had some violence. It just wasn't especially graphic. And Hitchcock's films, though violent, weren't especially graphic - they relied on leaving the gore to the audience's imagination, which is a much more effective method for increasing tension, IMO.
Tarantino is a shock jock. All he seems to have going for him are foul language and graphic violence.
I have to agree, he would have the Enterprise covered in gore and, the crew cussing a blue streak the whole film. So, no, we don't need him making a mockery of Star Trek.
I will respect reviews from people I have agreed with before. If Roger Ebert really liked a movie, there was a good chance I would really like it too. Not always, but usually. Movie reviews can also add information to the story that helps you as the viewer understand it better.
What I really don't get are music reviewers, since I think music is much more subjective an art than movies are. I never paid any attention at all to music reviews. In fact I always thought I had way better taste than the rock critics did.
I guess that is a good way of doing things. I like Ebert since he always kept it real. I also read Rotten Tomatoes, since those are the reviews of moviegoers.
I may never get to see the new series, but then I won't need to compare it with the fact that I really enjoyed The Hunt for Red October.
I was thinking along the same lines - leave "The Hunt for Red October" alone, dammit! I'm not a big Tom Clancy fan, but I loved that movie.
That was a great movie, but what made it great, was not just the storytelling, but the way Alec Baldwin played it. It wasn't super heroish. Alec was screwed by the studios and was forced out to be replaced by Harrison Ford, who they thought would be a bigger draw (Alec was pretty unknown then). Every Jack Ryan movie after that, although entertaining, was overplayed along the lines of Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible". Hardly believable.
I don't think I watched any more of the Jack Ryan movies, so I can't really speak to them. They just never appealed to me. I only happened to catch Red October because it was on TV, and I got drawn in.
Yeah, Alec Baldwin did a great job in that movie, and the rest of the cast was excellent, too.
I prefer to be my own judge of any movies or theatrical productions rather than let others do my thinking for me. I don't depend on others to vote for me, so why would I depend on the opinions of others to choose for me what I should and shouldn't like when to comes to movies, books, stage productions, or anything else.
As a creative writer myself, I write about what I like, or what impresses me, things I think are important in life, and what may encourage others to realize the importance of the part Mother Earth plays in our own lives. I write not for profit or fame, but, to express my own thoughts and feelings on such things.
Opinions are like butts, everyone has one, and so do I. My tastes are my own, and what I like or not is based on my own thoughts, feelings and what I derive from watching or reading various tings, and are based upon my own opinions and tastes. Many times it is not so much what it is about, but, how well it is written or brought to life on the scree nor stage. I did some acting in high school and community theater when I was young just for the fun of it, but, I also learned the importance of not just acting, but, becoming the character in emotions and mind that gives realism to the part. Some of the lesser known actors have played the best roles than the stars in my own opinion.
So...depending on what others think is something I don't do, as they are not me, and I look at things differently than they might.
Just my own opinion.
I totally agree with you Raven.
Can you guess what part I played in the play "Little Women" when I was in high school?
I was saving this series to watch with the hubs. Imagine my surprise when I walked in our room and he was already on epi 2
. I didn't tell him I was saving it, but dang! Anyway, I caught a little bit of epi 3 and it looks really good! I will be binge watching this today while I touch up door frame paint ahead of the house appraiser coming this evening. I agree with BF, when I saw the previews for this show, I was worried if "Jim" could pull it off. From what I have caught, it looks like he does a real bang up job.