The Good Shepherd (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
534 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Too much like the agency it portrays: slow, murky, unclear and emotionally distant
pyrocitor25 January 2007
Speaking as a viewer who had been eagerly anticipating the release of this movie since way back in the days when Leonardo DiCaprio was attached to star, I can honestly say I was very disappointed in the final outcome. Perhaps the film had simply become too hyped, with everyone proudly boasting it as "De Niro's comeback", but... suffice to say, no matter how hard I tried to enjoy this movie, it completely failed to entice me in any way, shape or form.

Director Robert De Niro tries a bold new touch by attempting a "CIA feel" for the film, in the sense that an element of mystery is present throughout the entire plot, attempting to better immerse us in the world of lies, deception and uncertainty that was the early CIA. Unfortunately, this method backfires very noticeably, as the plot seems to weave all over the place and we are presented with flat, uninteresting characters who are denied the further development or screen time which might actually have made them appealing. We are simply presented with a slew of famous faces in tiny roles, appearing and disappearing so quickly we barely have the chance to register their presence, but there is no connection with the characters, nor the long, overly confusing convoluted plot they play a part in.

But the film's real weakness is the apathy factor. In a recent interview, De Niro acknowledged his intent that the plot should be more elusive and less obvious, to make the viewer work harder and appreciate the film further. He then proceeded to mention how viewers should be emotionally affected and connect with the characters, even if the plot may not always be clear, and we may not always what's going on, or who's killing who, or why. This is where De Niro's film really loses its viewers; the fact that not only is there not enough emotional connection to coast by, ignoring a lack of plot continuity, but the fact that there is no emotional connection whatsoever. Not only do we not know what is going on, nor are able to keep up fast enough to catch onto what few plot clues we may, but we can't invest enough interest into the film to do so. After a few scenes of brief, murky, unexplained and unrelated plot excerpts and confusing flashbacks from present to past times (made more difficult by the fact that James Wilson, Matt Damon's character never seems to age, and appears the same even 20 years later) we lose interest entirely, and find ourselves unable to care for the characters, nor care what is happening. We are kept at such a distance, both through an intentionally unclear plot and by uninteresting flat archetypes of characters that any interest we might originally have retained in the film quickly evaporates.

It's a shame that the film is so emotionally distancing though, as on the exterior it does appear to be a very stylish and classy piece of work. The cinematography is superb, capturing many unique, innovative shots and scenes, and the costume and set design are simply sumptuous, perfectly capturing the feel of the time period in a glossy, picturesque fashion. It is a shame how fully the apathy factor permeates the film though, because Eric Roth's script seems to be terse, tight, and engaging, but many lines are inaudible through muttering or fast speaking characters, and we are simply kept at such an emotional distance it is beyond us to make an effort to follow the rapid fire, confusing exchanges. We want to like the script, but it is so twisty and clouded with uncertainty, much like a CIA document itself, that we find ourselves also left in the dark.

De Niro has assembled a stellar cast here, but he seems content to reduce most of them to very un-flashy cameos, giving us little chance to connect with any of the characters. Matt Damon is an effective figure as the film's star, James Wilson, remaining admirably cold, detached and stoic throughout the film, but the plot backfires once again - a lead character who is meant to be, all pretenses aside, boring, still comes across as boring, no matter how strongly they are played. Angelina Jolie seems a bit out of place as Wilson's spunky yet abandoned wife; she plays the part well enough, but fails to submerge her star power and charisma in a role where a much less noticeable and subdued female lead would've been far more effective. John Turturro stands out as a vicious CIA interrogator, one of the few flashes of emotion or engaging character action in the entire film, and Joe Pesci makes good use of his far too brief cameo as a mob boss. There are also noteworthy appearances by Michael Gambon, Billy Crudup, Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, Tammy Blanchard and Timothy Hutton, but their parts are reduced to far too brief and uninteresting segments for us to really connect with or care about their characters. De Niro himself almost steals the show with a tiny role as a military general who constantly complains about his feet.

All in all, the Good Shepherd comes across as a tremendous disappointment, considering the incredibly successful film it was poised to be. Maybe I had too many expectations, having looked forward to the movie for so long, or maybe the film was overly hyped, but either way, the film falls flat as far too long, self indulgent, emotionally distancing and just plain uninteresting, wrapped together in a bundle of self-imposed apathy. All except for fans of Robert De Niro or the rest of the cast willing to sit through an extremely long and un-engaging movie should give this one a pass, lest De Niro's self confidence be flattened forever.

-6/10
55 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An incredibly complex work and one of 06's finest...
HhH4308924 December 2006
The Good Shepherd 3.5/4 4/5

The Good Shepherd is an incredibly complex work and one of the finest films of a quality ripe 2006. Oscar winner Eric Roth continues his brilliant work with this original screenplay, named one of the best unproduced scripts in Hollywood in the late 90's. A film about one of the CIA's founding officers isn't a dream project commercially for a studio but thankfully, the quality of the script was too great to ignore.

Shepherd follows the life of Edward Wilson (Damon) through his college years at Yale to his ascension as one of the CIA's founding officers and trusted veterans. His extraordinary dedication to his work comes with an unbearable price as he must sacrifice his family to protect his country. At one point in the film, Wilson faces an enormous choice- does he abandon his ideals for what he believes is right? Would this abandonment render his life, almost solely devoted to his country, meaningless? This, as well as a depiction of the result of Wilson's decision, are just two of the moments of brilliance in The Good Shepherd.

Wilson inhabits a world of betrayal and secrecies only enhancing the irony of the biblical quote inscribed on the CIA's wall- "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". While we are given a glimpse into the life of a younger, more vital Wilson, the world he occupies creates the characteristically stolid, humorless man we come to know.

With its vast emotional core, the film seemingly effortlessly navigates one of the most volatile periods in the history of American intelligence while remaining character based. At 165 minutes, it is overlong but remains engaging for the vast majority of its running time. Had a few relatively insignificant scenes been cut, Shepherd could have retained the thrilling and energetic pace it often possesses. However, the length is justifiable as the scope of the film is incredibly large and very few scenes can be deemed unnecessary or dull.

Robert DeNiro's direction far exceeds that in his debut, 1993's "A Bronx Tale". Normally portrayed as a brute, here, DeNiro assuredly handles every moment with an innate tenderness we rarely see in his work. He appropriately treats Shepherd with a precise attention to detail often attributed to some of the greatest directors of our time.

A silently haunting Matt Damon carries the film on his shoulders. Edward Wilson is completely introverted and while Damon internalizes his thoughts, some of the films greatest moments are when emotion unknowingly pours out of Wilson through a mere flicker in his eyes. Angelina Jolie and Michael Gambon deliver very strong turns amidst a one of a kind cast topped off by the return of Joe Pesci, whose last acting stint was 1998's "Lethal Weapon 4".

The Good Shepherd is a film that demands to be seen. It is surprisingly apolitical as Wilson's life and its disintegration are the true story of this epic. While some call it "unsentimental", exactly the opposite is true. It is a testament to Roth's script that a film with such an introverted protagonist provides such a visceral, affecting experience. Shepherd is an intelligent, poignant look at the cost of blind dedication and constant secrecy. The effect this has on Wilson's life is irrevocable as we are taken on a remarkable cinematic journey, one that should be remembered as one of 06's greatest.
308 out of 402 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent
Andre-1482 January 2007
Excellent.

The good shepherd is an excellent film. The reason this film was dubbed the "Godfather of spy movies" is because ala the "Godfather" De Niro uses real life situations involving the CIA and blends them together creating a story around the lead character played by Matt Damon. In addition,several great performances in character parts complement Damon's performance, notably Michael Gambon and John Turturro were both superb. You shouldn't view this film expecting to be blown out of your seats, it is deep, and requires strict attention to detail. My wife and I viewed this film in a packed movie house and we were very certain that half the people in the audience didn't understand or appreciate what they had just seen. I am not saying you need to be of great intellect to enjoy this film, but one of the things De Niro manages to do is bring back a thinking man's drama that is often not seen in today's attention deficit, shoot them up, bang – bang movies. This film makes it obvious that Directors Bertolucci and Leone have left a huge impression on De Niro and the result is a movie that both would be proud of.
199 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
For the patient, a rewarding ride
Rooster98 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I can't vouch for how much truth can be found in "The Good Shepherd." After all, how much can you really know about an organization that deals in lies? But I do know that Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) is the perfect, duty-bound man of privilege -- born in the north east, bred in the Ivy League, lured into a secret society of cocky heirs to American industry, and made into a man feared by others only because he, himself, feared his superiors.

And even though Edward never truly existed, he managed to turn a cloak-and-dagger fraternity into a megalomaniacal arm of the government. And while the CIA was never intended to become the "heart and soul" of America, Edward helps to make it just that... while losing his own soul in the process. But the greatest irony of them all, is that Edward never wanted any of it. Like the heir to a dynasty, Edward was chosen from among the young elite, molded and coerced his entire life, as if the great machinary of America's powerful few knew he would be the perfect cog. And he was.

This is what "The Good Shepherd" does best. It creates an intriguing, tragic story worth telling, with no small help from the legacy of "The Godfather" series. Director Rober DeNiro channels Francs Ford Coppolla right down to the operatic, dual-story ending. The grave tone and slow escalation of this thriller may seem like a slow burn, but it's ultimately worth the fire, even if it does leave you craving a bit of Hitchcockian suspense (a couple of punch-ups from the oft-maligned Brian DePalma couldn't have hurt). But the subtle, dead-on acting from Damon will ground you. In the end, Edward is confronted by the responsibilities of duty and loyalty to family. And it's wonderful to see Damon take two "Godfather"'s worth of psychological burden and prove that he has the talent and strength to shoulder it.

On the other hand, the film suffers from a few bouts of contrived and melodramatic dialogue (mostly heaped upon the film's two, underwritten, female leads and on DeNiro's mugging cameo). And it's easy to get lost in the second act, during several mysteries about Russian spies and the Bay of Pigs invasion. With some sharper editing, the story could have been tighter and more focused early on. The more we drift away from Damon's central character, the more the story wanders. As it is, much of the story's intensity falls on the film's final act. But what an act it is.

The final twenty minutes comprise "The Good Shepherd"'s emotional and thematic backbone. For some audience members, it might come a little too late... after two hours of serpentine plotting, deliberate pacing and extensive backstory. But, for patient viewers, the slow burn will be worth it.
162 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The murky world of CIA deception as seen by one family man...
Doylenf24 December 2006
Before I go on to praise the good points of THE GOOD SHEPHERD, I should mention at the start that the film badly needed some judicious editing. There are many scenes that go on for too long a time and are badly in need of some artful editing to get the point across just as well.

Aside from length, everything else about the film is on the plus side--the handsome cinematography, the vast amount of settings, the background score that adds to the drama, and the performances of the entire cast which are uniformly good. I'm not a great admirer of ANGELINA JOLIE as an actress, but here I think she demonstrated skill at suggesting the loneliness, frustrations and jealousies of a woman whose life has to remain outside the boundaries of her husband's job with the CIA. Through a series of detailed vignettes, the murky world of an agent's life of deception within the government is sharply observed.

More of a character study of Edward Wilson (played in stolid, very serious fashion by MATT DAMON) than a straightforward spy yarn, it manages to hold the interest even though it uses the flashback method of storytelling that is apt to confuse a viewer if it isn't done well. But here again, there is a flaw--it covers a span of twenty or more years but the aging of the central character is never quite convincing enough. Damon never looks that much older than his grown son--whereas a few gray hairs might have helped considerably. As his grown son, EDDIE REDMAYNE does reasonably well as the man seeking his father's approval.

As for the supporting players in this story about one man's experiences in the newly developing CIA, JOHN TURTURRO does an outstanding job as a tough inquisitor and MICHAEL GAMBON is outstanding as a security risk with homosexual tendencies. ALEC BALDWIN has little to do but is intense enough as one of the agency's top men and others in the cast maintain credibility all the way through.

The story itself is rather problematic in that nothing is what it seems and not all the information is readily given to the viewer in a way that makes sense. This is partly the fault of the script and partly the fault of director Robert De Niro who also assumes a small role effectively.

But still, despite the handicap of being too long (and a bit too involved at certain points), it makes for fascinating viewing and is the kind of film you dare not divert your attention from for a moment. If you do, you are liable to miss an essential plot point.

Summing up: Highly recommended for anyone with a keen interest in espionage dramas.
155 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Lack of Compelling Storyline Sinks This Masterpiece Manquee
Danusha_Goska24 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"The Good Shepered" is excellent in so many ways it will frustrate viewers hungry for intelligent, adult film-making.

Matt Damon gives an unforgettable performance as the very cold American spy Edward Wilson.

Wilson makes Mr. Spock look like Zorba the Greek. Damon faced the same challenge that actors who play corpses face. I think he flashes his Matt Damon grin exactly once in the film's entire two-hour-plus runtime. Damon can simulate sex with Angelina Jolie without a flicker of heat melting one feature of his frozen face. This man may be the solution to Global Warming.

John Turturro crackles as an Italian American who verbally jousts with Yale snob Wilson when they first meet. Joe Pesci is a completely believable Mafia boss in one brief scene and in one brief observation about ethnicity in America. Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, Robert De Niro and Michael Gambon are solid gold, as ever.

Billy Crudup is scrupulously refined, and deadly, as a Kim Philby-like traitor. Tammy Blanchard is poignant as a deaf woman who truly loves. Eddy Redmayne is even more poignant as a sheep among wolves; I wanted to rush on screen and rescue him.

Angelina Jolie is a famous celebrity; you see her face on supermarket tabloids a lot. Whenever she appears on screen here as an obedient, frustrated wife, you think to yourself, "But, Angelina would never do that." And that's the problem with her "acting." The production values are sky high. You've got your vintage cars, your recreation of Skull and Bones retreats. You've got big issues: imperialism, espionage, the price of victory, loyalty, betrayal.

What you don't have is story. We care about movies, plays, and novels, and they get us to think about big ideas, because there is a story there, a boat, to glide us over everything else -- the characters, the details, the historical lessons.

Robert De Niro may be an artist, but he isn't, not in this movie, anyway, a story teller. You sense this right away. The first few scenes are a disconnected jumble. You really have to struggle to find a thread to follow.

The movie doesn't give us anyone to like or root for, or any tragedy to mourn. The movie doesn't know the answer to one key question: did Edward start out so cold, and did circumstance exploit his coldness, or did his life as a spy, to which he was recruited by more powerful others, make him cold? Compare this movie to masterpieces like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Searchers." Like "Shepherd," these films depict disturbed characters acting out their part against huge historical canvases. The key difference: both these films start and end with story, and were made by master storytellers. They don't ask you to *think* about imperialism or racism or destiny until they've seduced you to *care* about, and identify with, Lawrence, or Ethan.

"The Good Shepherd" wants to throw a lot of essay material at you: privilege, power, war -- and it rejects your involvement as callously as the main character himself rejects someone who loves him.

As much as this movie wants to be an intelligent movie, its choice to reject story and character as primary, and cogitation as only, ever the fruit of story, was ultimately, not very intelligent.
158 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Edward Wilson Shepherds the Citizens of America
DaveDiggler27 December 2007
"The Good Shepherd" is my second best film of 2006. A lot of people who have seen it will think differently and I can understand that. This film is not for everyone, but the viewers who have a love for US History, The Cold War, CIA, Espionage, or Spy films should be pleased with "The Good Shepherd." It is very subtle, but extremely effective.

"The Good Shepherd" is told from a series of flashbacks during a two week mission to find the significance of a document that was sent to the house of Edward Wilson by an anonymous person(s). We see the rise of Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) from his ranks as a Skull and Bones member to the head of the Counter Intelligence section of CIA.

Robert De Niro directs this epic, near-masterpiece, of the creation of CIA through one mans eyes, Edward Wilson. Matt Damon gives a great performance and one of his best along with "The Departed" and "Good Will Hunting." Damon plays Edward Wilson who starts off as a Yale graduate and Skull and Bones member. He is recruited by an FBI Agent (Alec Baldwin) to spy on his poetry professor Dr. Fredrick's (Michael Gambon), who is believed to have set up a Nazi organization and is enlisting students and faculty members. Edward agrees to spy on his professor after some talking into and gets the names of the people Dr. Fredrick's has enlisted, which leads to his firing on the basis of his political beliefs.

On Deer Island (Skull and Bones retreat) he meets Margaret "Clover" Russell (Angelina Jolie) who seeks out Edward immediately and finds something about him quite intriguing. Matt Damon plays "the man made out of stone" giving little to no emotional reaction to anything and just about everything. Edward Wilson is a man of few words, but he chooses wisely what few words he speaks.

Edward Wilson falls in love with Laura, played wonderfully by Tammy Blanchard- a deaf women- but their relationship comes to an abrupt end as Edward finds that Margaret has become pregnant with his child and Edward is to do what is expected of him. This means he will have to leave Laura and marry Clover. A week after their marriage Edward has to go overseas during WWII, mostly working out of Germany, but is sent to London and joins the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), by General Bill Sullivan (Robert De Niro).

After the war Germany is crumbling and Edward Wilson is climbing the ranks garnering more and more trust. The Soviets are now looking to acquire as many scientists as possible. In Berlin, Edward Wilson meets his adversary, codename "Ulysses," and the back and forth battle between Wilson (His codename is "Mother") and Ulysses is something to really behold and some of the best scenes in the film take part during their back and forth battle of disinformation and counter intelligence and deception and infiltration of spies sent into one another's operations and then each adversary takes out these spies, then sends the "message" that these spies were found and disposed of. Was that confusing? Neither seems to gain much of any ground on each other until the end of the film where Ulysses sends a spy into Wilson's Agency and get's valuable information from someone very close to Edward Wilson. This information ruins the "Bay of Pigs" invasion which turns out to be a costly loss and damaging defeat. Wilson has to make a tough decision between his family and his country.

Edward Wilson was a man of selflessness who put his entire life into his country and did what he could do with his son. He makes sacrifices for his country and for his son. He sacrifices his time and relationship with his family for his country. He sacrifices his true love with Laura and marries Margaret for his son. If you were going to sum up Edward Wilson it probably would be best to use the term "selfless." Everything he does is for his country and the future of it. We never see him do much of anything for his own personal joy. This kind of behavior leads to a marriage that crumbles and falls apart. He plays the protector and is forced to do things such as have people killed and interrogated for the greater good. All over an idea- Communism.

I loved it. It may take a few viewings to fully understand the complexities of this film, but it is well worth it and an intense film with some great action and conversation throughout the film.

9.7/10
25 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally a film that doesn't assume you're an idiot
deanmasters28 December 2006
After enduring trailer after trailer with endless stings of explosions, ridiculous CG-assisted stunts and mindless action, I felt very rewarded with an intelligent and intriguing film that defies the status quo of bigger and louder is better.

The Good Sheperd doesn't insult your intelligence, it stimulates it, sometimes confuses it, and forces you to look several layers beneath the surface. It feels like a throwback to another era of films when the complexity of a character was of greater importance than spectacle.

De Niro took a page from his producer's best work, Francis Ford Coppola, emulating films like The Godfather, The Conversation and Apacalypse Now. The drama rises not from the usual blatant conventional devices but rather by raising questions because of what we're not told and not shown. It requires a great deal of courage to use this style as films have gravitated more and more toward assuming the average moviegoer is of substandard intelligence. The scope of the film is enormous, yet the point of view is narrowly focused to be seen through the eyes of one man. There are a dozen of subplots, but all are carefully tied into the through-line of the story to match the main character's progression.

The film may require some understanding of American history from WWII through the Kennedy administration. It starts with the later years of the story, The Bay of Pigs debacle, and traces the steps that lead to it, one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of U.S. foreign policy. I found it a bit annoying that Matt Damon's character, Edward Wilson, barely seemed to age in the film while others around him did (the best way to determine his age is whether he's wearing wire-rimmed or horn-rimmed glasses), but it didn't ruin the film for me.

Overall though, definitely one of the best films of 2006. A rare film that makes you want to think and understand, rather than forget.
467 out of 579 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Someone once asked me, "Why don't they put a 'the' in front of CIA?" And I said to him, "do you put a 'the' in front of God?""
ackstasis1 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Robert De Niro's second directional effort - after 1993's 'A Bronx Tale' - is a deliberately paced, brooding and haunting glimpse at one man's life throughout the early years of the United State's counter intelligence agency, the CIA. Edward Wilson (Matt Damon, 'The Bourne Identity') begins his campaign, young and proud, wanting to "save the world". However, as he is forced to live a bitter lie year after year, a gulf develops between him and those he cares about. This is a story of true patriotism, and how it is never as glorious and inspiring as we are often led to believe.

We first come across Wilson in the cold, somber days of 1961. He moves slowly, eyes constantly cast downwards at the dampened concrete. From the bright, colourful, enthusiastic young man we will later witness in flashback, Wilson has been reduced to an empty vessel. He dutifully follows his daily routine, but he is now less of a man. For the good of his country, he has sacrificed his own life. In his younger years, Wilson was warned to "get out while you still can... while you still have a soul." The man who said this was brutally murdered just seconds later, and dumped into an icy river.

Not a film for the impatient, 'The Good Shepherd' is a beautiful glimpse into the very heart of a troubled CIA founder, at times evoking comparisons with such classics as 'The Godfather.' It perhaps moves a bit slow at times, but there are films where a jumbled combination of quick-cuts and fast pacing just doesn't work – this, most certainly, is one of them.

The acting from a stellar ensemble cast is generally very good. Matt Damon is perfect in the main role, though I did notice that, over the 30 year or so time period, he appeared to age extremely little. I've heard from somewhere that it was De Niro's deliberate decision not to significantly age Damon's character with make-up, though I'm still wondering what the possible reason for this choice could have been. Angelina Jolie is adequate enough as Wilson's wife in an unloving marriage, though I noticed that some of her acting did appear strained in some of the more dramatic scenes. Notable supporting roles and cameos also come from Alec Baldwin (as Sam Murach, an FBI agent), Michael Gambon (as Dr. Fredericks, Wilson's literature lecturer in college who is suspected to have Nazi connections), William Hurt (as Philip Allen, a superior at the CIA), Joe Pesci (lured from an agonising eight-year film hiatus) and De Niro himself as General Bill Sullivan, who, with his health rapidly failing him, actually establishes the Central Intelligence Agency.

Though advertised quite blatantly as a true story, the film itself is only based very loosely on actual events. Damon's character, Edward Wilson, is modelled upon James Jesus Angleton, a long-serving chief of the CIA's counter-intelligence staff, and Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., another American intelligence officer. Let us not, however, delve too deeply into facts, because that would only detract from what is otherwise a masterfully-crafted, emotionally affecting film.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Huh? Too fragmented and slow ....
Vic_max9 January 2008
This a very long movie. It's a bit confusing unless you intend to rewatch the beginning after watching the end. Then ... you can understand the beginning better. Sound confusing? It shouldn't be this hard to watch a movie. Plus, the first 2 1/4 hours of this nearly 3 hour movie is kind of boring.

The movie is basically about the life of a man during the start of the CIA. We follow him from his induction into an elite fraternity (or order) into his career with the formation of the CIA.

If it doesn't sound interesting, that's because that's all there really is. Unless you're a CIA history buff and are interested in this stuff, it's a bit boring for the average viewer. There is only one place where there is a real plot - and that's right at the end for about 15 minutes.

Furthermore, the way the movie is chopped up and given how long it is, it's likely you'll forget the what happened at the beginning by the time you get to the end.

For the average viewer, this movie isn't really worth the time. For the CIA history aficionado - knock yourself out.
50 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The spook who stayed in the cold: an epic critique of the American espionage game
Chris Knipp22 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A gray winter day was a fitting time to see one of the first public screenings of a film called "The Good Shepherd," whose chilly hero Edward Wilson (Matt Damon, in a role modeled in part on CIA founder, James Jesus Angleton) is not so much all things to all men as nobody to anybody. A composite figure in a portrait of the birth, rise, and moral shriveling of the American CIA, Matt Damon's disturbingly shut-down Wilson would be one of recent film's most tragic figures if he were not such a hollow, unappealing man. Directing a long-contemplated project using a screenplay by Eric Roth (who penned "Munich"), Robert De Niro has forged a "Godfather" of Yankee spy-craft, a heavy, solemn epic about betrayal and loyalty in the world of espionage and counter-espionage dominated not by Italians as in the original "Godfather," though Coppola produced, De Niro directed, and Joe Pesci has one of the liveliest on screen moments, but by uptight, stony, patrician WASPs.

Indeed as seen here the world of American intelligence is a privileged and exclusive and deeply conflicted one where Irish, blacks, and Italians need not apply; fathers are absent; privilege grows out of Skull and Bones at Yale, wives are betrayed; sons labor desperately to measure up, and the leading practitioners are ridden with guilt and suspicion. There is no one to trust and nothing to believe in – not family or tradition, or even music – only America, which Edward Wilson says belongs to his class. All others are just visiting.

Into this demoralizing story, damning in its picture of the world of white privilege and of intelligence itself but nonetheless intricately involving and at times genuinely disturbing, are woven some of the major incidents and personalities of the period from from before the Second World War – after which OSS morphed into CIA— till after the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion under JFK, from hot war to cold war. You have Philbys and fake Russian turncoats, CIA execs siphoning off money to Switzerland in guise of chocolate boxes, and through it all you have a Cuba mole investigation that smashes Wilson's own family.

Wilson's true penchant was for a deaf girl named Laura (an excellent Tammy Blanchard); and with her is the only time Damon seems to develop human warmth. He is forced to marry the more elevated Margaret Russell (an uncomfortable Angelina Jolie) sister of one of his Skull and Bones colleagues who remains Wilson's Old Boy link to privilege ever after. Traumatic embarrassment, revelation of closest held secrets, and doubt of loyalty are seen as inborn elements of the espionage world. The very qualities that make a good spy, as seen here, also make a man untrustworthy.

Do spies ever have fun? Not much, as seen from the angle of Damon's character. Dr. Fredericks (Michael Gambon), a randy gay pseudo-intellectual who turns and turns again, is naughty, but he pays for it. Another Brit, Arch Cummings, played gamely by Billy Crudup, similarly wears a smile that turns to dust. A good professional of the lower ranks like Staff Sergeant Brocco (John Turturro), Wilson's OSS assistant in England, is a stern sadist whose use of LSD for an interrogation backfires fatally. Nasty sabotages are devised to spoil the left's Latin American agricultural schemes. Big foul-ups like the Bay of Pigs invasion lead to vicious internal purges. And through it all Wilson's son cringes and his wife pines; the marriage had dried up after his six-year absence during WWII; and his imploded selfhood is symbolized by his only hobby, building ships inside bottles. As the film bluntly puts it, the spy-master must choose either family or country; he can't have both. And is it all worth it? The Russian on LSD declares his country's armed might a myth perpetuated by America to justify its ongoing pursuit of world dominance. Is intelligence a needed quantity, or are its organizations self-perpetuating shams? The movie never gives a positive answer. This may be the cruelest picture of the spy game ever put on film.

Many fine actors play small unappealing roles as spy-masters or cold operatives. These include De Niro himself, Alec Baldwin, and William Hurt, all creditable, but unlikely to get Oscar nods for their tightly held back performances. Damon can be accused of the same limitation, though if his Wilson bothers you, he's done his job better than you may think. And young Eddie Redmayne, as Wilson's grown son, has one of the most gut-wrenching roles in a story notable for its devastating picture of the effects of career on family life.

Despite its epic scale and length (it's 160 minutes long), "The Good Shepherd" is more troubling than flashy, more thought-provoking than moving. Ultimately it may be somewhat an artistic failure. The criticism that it is either too long or too short, that it needed to be pared down or expanded to a mini-series, has some merit. But nonetheless as a work that considers big issues and asks big questions, it's one of the more serious and intellectually stimulating mainstream American films of the year.
368 out of 478 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty decent movie of CIA history.
gazzo-220 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with the complaints here to a point on: slowness, lack of action, murky plot lines, over-length. But I also enjoyed the fact that DeNiro tried something different-character sketch, history, multi flashbacks-these certainly were worthy of wading through.

Clearly Damon was Lansdale or Angleton. Clearly Hurt was Dulles. I liked that much, and the obvious nods to the Kennedys etc. as well-pretty good.

The Skull and Bones are the Illuminati cliché is kinda tired, if anything I think they might want to avoid it. All that was left out was the Roswell '47 landing and perhaps something about Nazi artifacts...anyways I digress.

Damon was well-cast as a cypher, ice-man who did his job no matter what. Joli always looks semi-anorexic to me. They also were really TOO old to be playing 20 year olds at the start, and hard to buy into the aging. Jolie and Damon as Mom and Dad just...kinda doesn't ring true, ya know? And that kid of theirs was straight outta 'AI' and looked a lot closer to being Damon's nephew or youngest brother, to be honest. This wasn't the greatest of casting choices there, to be honest.

I liked Deniro as Bill Donovan, Pesci as Trafficante(or whomever), Hutton as Richard Helms. These were pretty identifiable types. The slagging of locusts into the coffee crop-well that could have been Guatamala or Venezuela or lord knows where. They missed an opportunity though-wasn't 'The Belgian Congo'/Leopoldville' where in '61 the CIA knocked off Patrice Lamumba who'd been elected as a marxist? Really nasty deal went on down there. And there's nary a blip about this. What was the kid doing there in the first place? The story telling here got too jumpy-you don't quite know what to make of their doings.

It's worth watching--just see it as a character sketch instead of a real history and you might like it more. Deniro could have trimmed 20 mins off though easily.

***
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This movie oversteps the 'dramatic license' allowance
jimojimo29 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Coupla things (no pun on Francis-Ford intended) about this movie. (spoilersbelow)

First, some minor details that bugged me--things that really violated what I consider to be reasonable dramatic license in plot lines or scenes, (not in order of seriousness): 1. The photos of Wilson in the cab during his brief affair with the deaf woman. That fling was a completely spontaneous thing, and his meetings with the Ulysses guy (after which that fling followed) would have been scheduled in utter secrecy. So how would someone have been following him to get these photos? Even if it were the Russians--who would have known of the meeting through Ulysses--they would have gained little or nothing from trying to meddle in his personal dealings with his wife. They're not after that kind of dirt on him, and risking blowing their cover by giving her the photos would be like the FBI blowing their cover on a years-long sting operation by giving their quarry a traffic ticket. It made no sense. And Angelina Jolie's character wouldn't have had him followed--first, I don't think she really cared that much, and besides--he's the top spy--he wouldn't have been found out by some second-rate private-eye.

2. Her (Angelina Jolie's) reaction to his affair was way, way out of line with her character. She'd already admitted she had an affair, and he was basically an absentee husband and father, they both knew the marriage was utterly baseless. So why would she be so upset? She said she was 'humiliated'. How? Nobody else knew about the photos but her. Why make a scene like she did--that's the only thing that humiliated her.

3. The thing with the son and that girl was so far out of sync with any reality that it really ruined the whole movie for me. First, I'd guessed it at the moment his son asked to join the CIA. And that was really the central part of the movie--from beginning to end they were trying to figure out the tape and the sounds and all that. Back then, a transatlantic love-affair in the Congo would have been exceedingly difficult to both conduct and especially hide--even from an absentee father. There were several other things that were out of bounds but once a movie oversteps that 'dramatic license' boundary once or twice, the rest don't matter--the movie is ruined.

Also, this movie broke rule #1 (in my opinion): For a movie to be really likable, you need to have a central character that you either like, understand, or can at least relate to in some way or another. Wilson was like a piece of cardboard. Like the one line said "There can't be two of you".

Finally, for this to be interesting I think you'd have to have some prior knowledge on the subject, ie, have read at least a book or two on it to catch and/or follow some of the highly enigmatic dialog. I've read several non-fiction works on this, as well as some 'based on fact' fiction books, and fortunately *some* of the subject matter was familiar and semi-interesting. But this movie couldn't make up it's mind as to whether it wanted to be a 'based on fact' fictional movie, or a pure fantasy fiction piece. It mixed them and therefore sold itself short on each one.

--Jim
41 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
All Craft and no Substance
roland-16914 September 2007
You can imagine that when it came to editing this film that they were scared that might lose for ever a few minutes of fine acting. Yes all these actors can act and they do it very well. They do it in worthy style in hushed voices for about two and half hours. But surely there is more to a good film than fine performances? In an effort to bolster the film they have stolen a central strand from 'The Conversation' (the reconstruction and deciphering of a taped conversation over a period of time) and mixed it with an array of characters who might have stepped from some mirror version of 'The Godfather' featuring families of WASPs and for good measure thrown in the worst part of 'Eyes Wide Shut' - namely the secret society that everyone who is everyone is a member of but of course is so secret no one knows about it. I suspect that if about 50 minutes were taken out of the film and the plot tightened up and if Matt Damon did not look perpetually adolescent then one might finish watching this feeling the experience was worthwhile. As it is some will be fooled by the smoke and mirrors that they have seen a masterpiece and others will have fallen asleep.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What is wrong with the critics???
emames26 December 2006
Though this movie was hailed as one of the greatest movies of this year, the Godfather of spy movies, I must say... poor spy movie genre. Is this really the best it's seen?

Overall, what little strength this film had came from the minor acting parts, namely the performances by Tammy Blanchard and Michael Gambon. Though to be fair, the major actors didn't have much to work with. Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie were both flat and boring. I wanted to smack all the actors (except Gambon and Blanchard) in this movie at one point or another. Perhaps this film would have been better with more interesting dialogue, a more exciting plot. Maybe it was doomed from the start. I don't know.

I really wanted to like this movie. I came into the theater expecting an exciting, well-executed dramatic thriller, but came out almost completely empty-handed. My whole family thought it was a disappointment. We all agreed DeNiro should stick to acting. But there's little to do now except pray this movie doesn't get an Oscar.
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
has the makings of something greater, but it's too under-stated and secretive to really let a viewer in
Quinoa198427 December 2006
I really wanted to love the Good Shepherd, but maybe like the main character of Edward Wilson it's a hard one to love even if one can admire/respect it in some ways. It's a film cluttered by being both too long and too short, where the pace feels plodding at times and with some unnecessary beats, and at the same time not developing quite enough on the points that could be more interesting. It's one of those films about a government agency (in this case it's inception) that I ended up liking more for what good things I saw than for the overall whole bang of the picture. I do have to give credit where it's due, however. Matt Damon, on a roll it seems after Syriana and the Departed, is at his most under-stated (and rightfully so, probably taking cues from Robert De Niro, a man who has under-stated sometimes as his bread & butter) in the role of Wilson, a man who sacrifices his own sense of truth for the honor of protecting the country, even if it means putting his own family into complete doubt about his character.

Psychologically I was always in tune with what was going on, and like last year's Munich there's a good sense of demystification that goes on with how an organization is run/starts up. And De Niro has assembled such a top-notch cast it's hard to complain on that front (with great character actors like John Tuturro, Michael Gambon, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, William Hurt, Joe Pesci). What ended up tugging me away from seeing this as a better film was the storytelling, or the sort of pull from really feeling connected with the material. Things diverge around in sub-plots, and sometimes it's gripping (like the torture scene with the Russian where LSD is used to try and reveal his name), but sometimes not so much, as with Wilson's affair with another woman. This side of it is a little murky for me- Angelina Jolie's character has an interesting start, with her practically jumping all over him when they meet, and once they marry and have a kid she becomes the dour note of his existence, even as he loves his son. I would've liked to have seen more about her, why she decided to be with him in the first place aside from the ultra-ambiguous "you look like husband material" line. It's also saddening, on the character-actor front, to see Joe Pesci (who hasn't acted in 8 years) in such a thankless part; I thought he would be there for more scenes, but it seemed like De Niro added him in as an afterthought.

What is compelling, however, does show De Niro as a very smart director with enough class to not spoon-feed the audience 'things' that happen. It's got a main part to it that is worthwhile to tell, which is Wilson's connection to his son, and Wilson's connection to a Russian counterpart to his CIA operative as a Russian operative nicknamed Ulysses (there's one scene I love that involved a violin, I won't say which). A lot of what the Good Shepherd brings makes for some good talk after it ends, but more so about what didn't work then what did. It has the makings to be one of the finest epics ever made in this decade, but sometimes even someone like Damon almost becomes TOO understated in his part- bordering on wooden- in being secret to the point of inertia. In the end, the Good Shepherd gives enough to subvert the spy film specifically on choices of mood and character, but it's also confused in how it decides to spend its time getting to the story that really counts.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A little long but worth it
Okonh0wp17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Good Shephard starts out a little slow and clocks in a little long (over 2 ½ hours) but it's a story that sooner or later hooks you.

Much hyped for the fact that Robert De Niro is directing it, The Good Shephard is marketed as a film that takes the viewer through the origin and the first 20 years of the CIA. The movie does act as a historical retrospect, but unlike recent docudramas like Bobby or Catch a Fire, the film is smart in not making it more about the journey of a character than a history lesson. It's far more based on a character's journey.

At the story's center, Matt Damon plays Edward Wilson, who is recruited to the CIA from a secret Ivy League society. He's stoic, cold, and enigmatic and the strength of the movie is that the question of why he does what he does is never fully answered. It's only hinted at and revealed in the film's last act as the plot branches out towards Wilson's relationships with his estranged wife (Jolie), son (Redmayne), and the love that never was (Blanchard).

The film boasts an all-star cast. Some of them like Joe Pesci were probably brought into the project solely because of their connections to De Niro, but the movie does feature strong performances from everyone, particularly Jolie, Blanchard. Matt Damon does a great restrained performance although it stretches the credibility of the part that he ages 20 years and his son grows up and he still looks like he's under 30.

The film's big production values; its noirish score and carefully constructed mise-en-scenes; make a boastful statement that the film is about something big and it's well deserved.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Remarkable
Whistler7181 January 2007
I wasn't sure that a movie like this could or would still be made and released in this country.

No, it wasn't Mission Impossible 6. It didn't have the overwhelming special effects, chases, explosions and gunfights one might expect in a spy thriller. It didn't need them. Thrilling enough was the exposition of character (imagine that). Plot? Whose real life has ever had a tight plot line? Edward Wilson's life meandered along like many do. In fact, I found it even more interesting because the turns Wilson's life took seemed dictated by his character and not just by his chosen profession.

Courageous choices were made by DeNiro in making this film, by Damon in tackling the role with such coldness and stoicism, and by Jolie in passing on being a movie star in favor of being an actress.
133 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Smoke and Mirrors with a Solid Ending
tjbb311327 December 2006
"The Good Sheperd" is long and very detailed drama portraying the beginning of the CIA. Matt Damon plays Edward Wilson who is a privileged youth from a wealthy family. His father commits suicide when Edward is very young because he had betrayed his country, but before he ends his life he leaves a note for his family. Edward picks up the note and does not read it for most of the movie. As the movie goes on, Edward goes to college, joins a secret society, and finds love, but his life takes a bad turn when he impregnates Clover Russell, played by Angelina Joli, and is forced to give up his love at the time and marry Clover. In the midst of all this, Robert DeNiro and William Hurt are recruiting Damon to start an intelligence agency. As soon as he is wed, Edward receives his orders to go over seas. From this point, the film takes a serpentine approach with a lot of smoke and mirrors. Through all of this, Matt Damon becomes more and more cold and deceptive towards his family leading up to an ending that fits the movie to a "T". Robert DeNiro in his sophomore effort as a director creates a movie that drags in spots, but overall is a solid story about the start of the CIA.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Tries to be great, but ultimately fails.
frozensky8 April 2007
I found the core storyline not hard to follow, but because they chose to include so many under-explained tangents (it came off as a lame attempt to make it seem like it had more depth and girth than it actually did), the overall result is that the movie felt muddled. Add that to the problematic pacing/awful editing job, and this movie becomes the epitome of potential without successful followup.

I saw it in a theater, so I got the chance to watch it intently, without interruption, but I kept asking my friend what time it was.... even as early as only an hour in! Not a great or even remotely interesting movie by any means, and some seem to be fixated on the idea that it *must* be great because it's a movie about the CIA directed by De Niro that doesn't have explosions/car chases or romance/sentimentality. But in the end, this movie is totally forgettable. It's not a deep or extremely intellectual movie, but rather just a simple story in a convoluted veil, attempting to hide that there's not much substance to this.

Also, depth-less performance by Damon.
36 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An intelligent tale of duty and loyalty
leftie_imw1 January 2007
I went into the theatre with little knowledge but that I was going to be watching a film about a man who was one of the founders of the CIA. Expecting this, I thought this movie was outstanding and a mind game from start to finish.

What one has to understand about the movie itself is that it is as complicated as the storyline. It starts out with two different time lines, decades apart and slowly one reaches the other. That in itself can be difficult to follow, but it is well worth the effort to pay attention because if you can leave the theatre understanding what took place, you walk away with a little more knowledge about the human complex.

Because this is a story more about the soul and our humanity than it is about spies and country. Those are just the means by which De Niro uses.

Every actor is placed remarkably well and no more so than Matt Damon himself. It is his acting that gives us Edward Wilson; a man without airs who doesn't compromise. The movie spans over twenty years and fortunately we see those years reflected in most of the characters. Angelina Jolie does the neglected, alcoholic wife superbly. William Hurt and Lee Pace as Richard Hayes both give a wonderful performance taking their character's flaws from subtle to substantial by the end.

Some might wonder how so many actors could be recruited for such small roles, like Alec Baldwin, Michael Gambon, and Joe Pesci, but one only has to see as far as the director to get their answer. Don't let the big names and the anagram CIA get you. This movie is as edgy as it is intricate with twists and turns that take the viewer through the world of trust and the human element. A man like Edward Wilson is just the perfect vessel for the journey.
110 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overly Long Yet Intriguing Film---Worth the Price of a Ticket
John_Q_Citizen15 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Edward Wilson believes in America--a patriot. He has been involved with the intelligence community since the day his father shot himself as a traitor. Edward was six. Years later, he is married to Margret Ann Russell after ending a tumultuous affair with a deaf woman. He catches the eye of Gen. Bill Sullivan, who appoints Edward as chief director of a new intelligence agency. CIA.

This movie is incredibly detailed. While non totally accurate in terms of historical events, it does show a commitment to history. The characters are not the real people--simply characters based on real people. I was surprised by how intrigued by this movie I was. The plot was confusing yet compelling. There were some genuine twists in the story, most of which caught me off guard. You truly cannot trust anybody.

This picture boasts the most ensemble cast in a film since...well, any film. Chalk full of famous actors like Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, William Hurt, Robert De Niro, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, Michael Gambon, and even a small cameo from Joe Pesci, they all give great performances, as usual. Matt Damon effortlessly always plays the serious tough guy who is committed to his job. Angelina Jolie plays the distraught wife with surprising believability. William Hurt, Crudup, De Niro, Gambon, Pesci--all of them play great enigmatic people that perform wonderfully.

I was surprised when I found out that Robert De Niro would be at the helm of the movie. I didn't know if he would work well as a director--but I was surprised. He delivers the story across pretty effectively, although at the beginning it is slightly jumbled and takes a while to get a feel of what's going on. He brings each twist across that leaves you genuinely surprised (most of the time).

The cinematography was pretty good, although kind of generic. It comes across as a period film with the choice of colors and color palette in the stock.

I was a little irked about the length of the film, though. About ten minutes could've been cut, although I really can't say which ten minutes, because almost every scene is essential to the development of the plot.

Overall, an intriguing film, but a little too long for my tastes. But it was worth the ticket and if it's worth it, that's all that matters.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Good Shepherd keeps its flock safe.
IRateFilms22 December 2006
Robert De Niro has crafted a story about espionage, lies and the American way in his second directorial bout. As De Niro borrowed from Martin Scorsese for his first film, A Bronx Tale, he borrows heavily from Francis Ford Copolla in this case and borrows well. This time around De Niro focuses on the inception of the C.I.A, and their involvement in various Government coups outside the United States, all in the name of freedom. Matt Damon stars as Edwards, the perfect arian specimen, bread into Ivy League stature and inducted into a secret society whose predecessors included ex-presidents, senators and congressmen. If there was ever a piece of solid film-making, The Good Shepherd would be it, never seeming too boring or overbearing in its 170 minute runtime. Paralleling the Copolla tradition, De Niro tells this story in a non-linear fashion, which ties in the two stories closer and closer as the film drives to its finally.

The Good Shepard is not as good as A Bronx Tale, but on its own this film's character development does embody a larger scope, and deals with a much more global aspect than its predecessor. There have been many films like this, including Spy Games, that lack the mature and authentic inspiration that The Good Shepherd nailed in its entirety, whether this particular story was true or not. De Niro's role, or cameo in this case, seemed a little forced, and too contrived, but can be coped with, as his role is short and easily forgetful. Some of the dialog is also flawed, due to the scripts weakness in dealing with the underdeveloped female characters, thrown into the film for sheer tragic effect. The overall story, dealing with war-time, both intelligence and counter-intelligence, parallel the way wars are fought today. There are many aspects of the film that, deliberately or not, most likely the prior, mirror how Americans view threats outside the United States. Not only are non-democratic governments viewed as threats, but they are taken down by what this film proves is the ''heart and soul" of the United States, the C.I.A.

Despite the films political message, that might not be pleasantly received by most , and may be viewed by even more as an anti-American film, this is a more American film than initially perceived. The Good Shepherd tries to show the hypocrisy's and sheer ignorance that leads to many of the choices a government makes today, and ironically made the same mistakes in their choices years ago. Much of the film deals with war quietly and the basis that wars are fought not only in the battlefield, but more importantly in offices while wearing suites and ties. De Niro captures these actions brilliantly in this political thriller, and will draw a lot of unavoidable criticism due to his choice of material.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing
TotallyUniqueTime23 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I went in this one really wanting to like it. What an incredible concept! But the film just didn't do a thing for me.

Firstly, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief to buy Matt Damon as a 20 year-old college junior. He was just plain old 34 year-old Matt. THEN six years later, he has a son and talks to him on overseas long distance and Matt looks exactly the same except he has changed his eyeglass frames...he is supposed 26 yet still looks 34. THEN, fifteen years later, Matt has changed his eyeglass frames again but now his son is 20 years-old and Matt is STILL only 34. When these two are together as father and son, it just kills any other aspect of what the story is attempting to tell us because NO ONE can buy into Matt Damon's son only being 14 years younger than himself.

The least DeNiro could have done was to put a little grey hair at Matt's temples or buy him a different suit of clothes. In a film full of flashbacks covering a 22 year period, it is vital to make your characters age and progress through life.

Oh yeah, I absolutely COULD NOT buy Angelina Jolie as a 20 year-old debutante. And the most frequent comment I heard in the lobby following the film was observations about Matt and Angelina's gay son with the deformed giant upper lip...very distracting and horrible casting on the grown son actor.

But putting the casting aside, the thread that unites the tale into a whole and pulls along to the conclusion of the story is totally nonexistent. Sure, I saw some of the old fabled myths of CIA lore stabbed at rather listlessly like the LSD-25 scene. Actually, the LSD suicide via window jumping was supposedly a CIA agent and not a Soviet operative. And the whole planting of locusts in South America by the CIA in order to foil the Zapatistas politico/economic strategy has pretty much been discredited over the years. But this IS, after all, a fanciful telling of a single person's vantage of the period so I guess it is not that important.

But there were incredibly disjointed scenes that did nothing for the story and barely did anything for character development. For instance, Joe Pesci appearing for several minutes of noncontributing story points just so Matt Damon's character can say, "America, the rest of you are just visiting" was a waste of time and illuminated nothing about Cuba, the Mob or the CIA's relationship with the Mob. Or why is Matt's son in Africa hooking up with black girls? Is Matt's son supposed to be a CIA agent at that point? Is he giving up dirty tricks to the other side? What did he do with the information he overheard in the bath tub? Was he still just a college boy? You really cannot nail down time periods regarding the son because he ages even less than his parents once he becomes an adult.

And a most irritating bit of prop management is it appears that Matt Damon's character wore the same trench coat and hat from 1939 to 1961. I am sure they were of the highest quality but I just don't see these items being worn every single business day for over twenty years and still looking serviceable.

Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this movie but after three hours of my life sitting there waiting for the big reveal, it just ended. I cannot recommend this one to friends unless they are willing to wait for DVD rental or, better yet, HBO release. Sorry.
168 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solid narrative but mistakes intelligence and maturity for just having an overly slow pace
bob the moo26 July 2007
Time will see Edward Wilson become involved in the disastrous Bay of Pigs with the CIA and trying to locate the leak that caused the operation to fail. Looking back we see Edward Wilson as a young man in his days at Yale, where approaches to work for the OSS sees him travelling abroad as Britain goes to war. Back at home his already weak family life is hurt by the distance as his wife gives birth to a son. At work his simple ideals are influenced by the sense of mistrust and paranoia that exist as part of his job and from those all around him.

There is no denying that at times this film does move painfully slowly. Some people have claimed that this slow pace is all part of the film having a "grownup" narrative but this a bit like assuming that a car must have a stereo – they are common together but they are not mutually exclusive. So it is here as a mostly engaging narrative is badly misjudged in regards pacing, stretching the material so thinly at times that it does suffer; I can understand why this is accepted as being part and parcel of the story but I personally think that it is a flaw in the delivery.

It is a shame as well because the story does have the potential to produce a grown-up espionage story where the sense of mistrust is as important as the actual actions within the story and indeed it does deliver this well, if you manage to overlook the sluggish pace. Some have claimed the story to be wonderfully complex and to an extent they are correct but this is as much to do with the structuring of the story as it jumps around in time. That said I still found the narrative interesting, but not to the point that I found it as strong as others have claimed.

The driving heart of the film is left to Damon, who gives a strong performance that is the opposite of the equally good turns he has been giving as Jason Bourne. He ages his character really well without any significant use of make-up; the make-up of his character being enough for him to mark out that transition. The rest of the cast is ramming with star names but few are given the time to be more than "OK" and none match the consistent presence of Damon. Baldwin, De Niro, Gambon, Hutton, Sessions, Pesci, Blanchard, Hurt and others all provide solid support but I felt that, of all of them, Jolie stood out like one massive sore thumb. She is badly miscast and she pushes her character beyond what the material suggests she should be. She is a disappointment and distraction. As director, I did think that De Niro was lacking in some areas and that the ability to bring her in was one of them. Perhaps the pacing was another but blame for that also lies in the editing suite. Visually he has a good eye for the shot and makes some wide shots work just as well as close ones, both contextually working as well as visually.

Overall then, an OK film that is some in the middle of the praise and criticism directed at it. It is a smart script but the pacing is not part of it – in fact it is an error in the delivery that damages the flow of the story and makes it harder work than it needed to be. The collection of stars (what is the collection noun for that anyway) are solid but slightly distracting – although none moreso than a badly miscast and misfiring Jolie. Thank goodness then that Damon provides a rock of a lead and makes the film better than it could have been albeit still less than the sum of its parts.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed