In Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, Jack Ryan was the star, front and center.
But in this film, Connery’s character was the central figure, Connery’s performance was the best. The audience leaves the film with Connery’s character in mind.
I don’t consider this film to be a Jack Ryan film like Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger.
Well it might also be that though I like him in other films, Alec Baldwin just isn't as much fun as Harrison Ford was either. I do agree though. I mainly watch this film for Sean Connery. Though it doesn't help that there isn't as much action in this as the later ones either.
shareI have to agree. Connery was the star of the show. But I don't think the movie lives up to the hype. I thought it was pretty good but people really brag on this movie. I give it a 6.5 out of 10. In fact, I'd have to say that I've seen some better sub films.
share"Sean Connery made this movie"
I am pretty sure there were other people involved in manufacturing this movie besides him.
How is the word “make” used in this sentence
he waited confidently for his band to make it
Is the person waiting for this band to make a cake, a paper-mache, or a portrait? Or does the word “make” mean “succeed in something; become successful.”
Well he was the big name star of the movie so he was definitely the main focus. But Alec and his fine ass held his own though.
shareIt's funny but if asked to list the cast my first thoughts are the crew - Connery, Sam Neil, Peter Firth. It's after that I remember Baldwin - even though I liked him in the film.
shareWhen Patriot Games came out in 92 I had no idea it was a sequel to Red October (which I'd seen at the cinema), just figured it was a new Harrison Ford action thriller (which I didnt get around to seeing ), it was only when Clear & Present Danger came out I read a review saying it was the 3rd in the series after Red October/Patriot Games which kind of blew my mind at the time and went to see it at cinema and then rented PG. Anyway the reason for all that is bc Red October was first and foremost 'a Sean Connery movie', he was the star, top billing, his face on the poster, he's in the film throughout beginning to end etc .Baldwins Elvis haired Ryan is like a secondary supporting character in the movie. Obviously had Paramount managed to get Costner or Ford as Ryan like they wanted then it would've been a double A list movie (similar to Untouchables/Last Crusade) with Connery and Costner or Ford on the posters/promotion etc(in fact Connery would've probably been more secondary as it would've been first and foremost a Costner or Ford Jack Ryan movie)
Then what happened with Baldwin is Paramount had the opportunity to replace him with a movie star of equal 'A list' status to Connery to headline the sequel and then kind of buried the connection to Red October (whereas had they kept Baldwin it would've been all over the posters/promotion 'the sequel to The Hunt For Red October')
The situation be like had Dr No starred a huge star like Yul Brynner as Dr No top billing on the poster with newcomer Sean barely promoted as Bond, then is replaced in FRWL by Cary Grant