CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This is the best spy film to be
released in several years. It is also the most
intelligent film in the Jack Ryan series based on the Tom
Clancy novels so far. Screen credit goes to three top-
notch screenwriters. There is one breath-taking action
sequence, a generous dollop of government skullduggery,
and a plot that will seem to be taken from headlines of
recent U.S. history. This is as good as any of the James
Bond films. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4).
When the U.S. Coast Guard intercepts a derelict yacht floating in American waters, it discovers that it was the scene of a grisly set of murders. The victim was a prominent businessman and his family, all personal friends of U.S. President Bennett (Donald Moffat). Bennett is shocked and angry, particularly when investigation proves the murdered man had financial ties to Columbian drug lords. Bennett hints to his security advisors that the time has come to start striking back against the Columbian drug families. And the action taken and its results are the heart of this story.
Harrison Ford returns as Jack Ryan, and he remains a disappointing choice. Ryan is someone who should be alert, perhaps hyper-active, and should have a youthful appearance to live up to his boy scout image. Even with his character under fire, Ford seems only 90% awake. He is popular with audiences, but his acting is a liability, in my opinion. Donald Moffat returns to playing a President not unlike his Lyndon Johnson of THE RIGHT STUFF. Adding no new tricks to his bag, Harris Yulin, familiar for many roles as villains, plays National Security Advisor James Cutter. Willem Dafoe does not stretch his talents much as a commando. Anne Archer repeats her role as Cathy Ryan. Miguel Sandoval is a rather winning rich drug lord. It is probably Moffat and Sandoval who stand out as the better actors of the film. But the emphasis is more on the story than on acting.
Phillip Noyce, the director of the (recommended) thriller DEAD CALM, and the less satisfying PATRIOT GAMES does have a better script to work from in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Generally a script credited to three people will have some problems, but CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER seems to suffer from this less than most such films. That could be because of who the three people are. One is John Milius who wrote films like MAGNUM FORCE, APOCALYPSE NOW, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and general action films. Then there is Donald Stewart, veteran of MISSING and the two previous Jack Ryan films. The third writer was Steven Zaillian, whose screen credits include AWAKENINGS, PATRIOT GAMES, SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER, and SCHINDLER'S LIST. It is an unlikely trio, but it works in a script that has action and is cerebral. Somebody at Paramount was concerned about getting good writing and the screenwriting credits are as impressive as any of the other credits.
The script is good, but not perfect. Toward the end of the film the action starts becoming a little less intelligent and a little more action-oriented. In short, it becomes a little too reminiscent of James Bond films. Though an action sequence in the first third is very well done (if one ignores a touch of cliched slow motion). This one piece is the high point of the film and really leaves the audience breathless. After Ryan escapes from this trap, there is little else he does that is as impressive. A sequence intercutting between a formal ceremony and a bloody massacre perhaps borrows a little heavily from the "Godfather" films. Also refreshing in the writing is the presence of a strong and intelligent woman who is clearly not present for decorative value. But what is most impressive in this film is the moral ambiguity of Ryan's position. Ryan remains the hero to the audience, but for the first time in the series, a serious case could be made that he is not acting in the best interests of the United States.
Of course the classic spy film series to date has been the James Bond series. What I think is often forgotten is that the Bond films all too often had contrived and simplistic plots. They were better than this year's TRUE LIES in that regard, but there was little to engage the viewer's mind. The plots were too dependent on chase sequences and fight scenes. The other extreme is a story like TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY in which everything that goes on is cerebral. The Jack Ryan films are a happy medium between the two and none more so than CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
There are more reasons to prefer Ryan to Bond for spy films. The Bond films spend a lot of time on sexual subplots. It is fun, but it takes valuable time from the plot. It is always clear that Ryan's best working organ is between his ears. Clancy's Ryan is a happily married family man who doesn't fool around ... in any sense of the word. With that screen time out of the way, the writing has more room for intelligence (no pun intended). And unlike in Bond films which have long chase scenes, one never feels that it is action scenes alone driving the plot. The action pieces are there, but they serve the plot rather than the reverse. I think I can safely say that CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER not only has a more satisfying plot than any of the Bond films, it is even the best of the Ryan films. The basic idea of the last two films could really be told with some justice in one or two sentences each. That is most definitely not the case in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. The game keeps changing for Jack Ryan through the entire film. Rather than this being a two-sided game, there is the kind of chaos one gets with several sides pulling in different directions. The script makes clever use of recent U.S. history to tell parts of the story that there would not be time to tell explicitly in the film. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is the best spy films in several years. It also is as riveting as any Bond film ever made. I would give CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews