Customer Reviews

The Good Shepherd (Widescreen)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This movie is smart, interesting, and at times thrilling. All actor give good performances and Robert DeNiro is and ecxelent director. This should have gotten a best picture nomination the the Oscars.

Some reviewers have commented that most of the characters were methodical and boring but in the world of spies I believe that these are the characters that survive.Matt Damon carries this movie and he is in almost every scene.

He is cold and calculating and a perfectionist but not a cruel man.His hobby is building ships in a bottle .His methodical and observant personality saves him from being compromised by the Russians who value him greatly.

De niro has succeded in making a low key movie very interesting but he fails at organizing the scenes in a logical order .The film jumps forward and backwards in time I had to watch the movie twice before I fully understood what was happening.

Despite its flaws and its confusing moments it is a long but never dull film.

How truthful is this film... no one will ever know.
How can anyone know anything about a company (CIA) that (supposedly) deals with lies... again, no one will ever know.
Important issues are presented here: imperialism, espionage, loyalty, betrayal...

This film was certainly worth watching, for Matt Damon's performance (as Edward Wilson) especially. He and *he alone* carries the film on his shoulders.
A surprise: De Niro shows a better talent as a director than an actor.
Angelina Jolie, as Wilson's wife, overacts way too much and her character is not credible because not well developed. Tammy Blanchard (who plays Laura) definitely has more talent than Jolie.

The melodramatic dialogue didn't help the movie, however well directed it may have been.

Recommendation to watch _The Good Shepherd_: Pay attention to the dates, as it is rather easy to get lost in the second act, where Russian spies and the Bay of Pigs invasion are mentioned.
Better editing and script-writing would have made the film shorter (close to 3 hours!), as many of those details were not needed to understand what was going on.

Certainly worth watching, but be prepared to endure three hours of film.

Ambitious, star-studded, and lengthy, The Good Shepherd purports to give us a sense of how the CIA operated during the Cold War and how it affected those who devoted themselves to the cause. So it is that, via a series of flashbacks, we meet an intelligent young Yale student named Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), watch as he is recruited into the service of American intelligence, joins the O.S.S. during WWII, helps found the nascent CIA in the 1950s, and goes about doing the thankless, extremely difficult job of keeping America safe through foreign crises, particularly those involving Castro's Cuba in the 1960s. It's not an expose on the CIA -- which it actually deals with quite even-handedly, especially in today's day and age -- as it principally focuses on the personal story of this one individual and what might be called his dehumanization at the hands of his sometimes sinister career.

Unfortunately, there is a major (but not fatal) flaw at the very heart of the film. Obviously, a man in Edward Wilson's position must be a cold and calculating man, but his characterization ventures far beyond stoic into the realms of the robotic. Even the personal glimpses intended to get us past the emotional wall that defines him lack insight and feeling. We see through his eyes, but we never really get a sense of his inward self. I also had a problem seeing Wilson as the experienced, upper level CIA man he became because no effort seemed to go in to making Matt Damon appear any older as his character aged; he looks the same in the 1960s as he did in 1939. Come on, put a few grey hairs in there or something; it takes more than a fedora to make me believe he's a quarter of a century older. Damon just never looks the part of an older Edward Wilson, and that really impacted -- and not in a good way -- my perspective of the entire movie. Additionally, even though this is not a factual account of CIA history, the film's attempt to deflect any blame from John F. Kennedy for refusing to grant air support to the otherwise sitting ducks storming the beaches at the Bay of Pigs really rubbed me the wrong way.

I think it helps to have some knowledge of the historical and political background of events touched upon in this movie, especially the dark stain that is the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That is really the lynchpin of the film's story, as one of the reasons for the failure slowly causes Wilson's personal and private lives to collide and truly test his mettle -- with more than a little help from the helping hands of a formidable KGB intelligence officer. What should be an excruciatingly painful decision dredges up virtually no emotion in the man, however -- although the same can't be said of Wilson's sometimes boisterous wife (Angelina Jolie). The ending doesn't pack much of a punch either, further pointing out the film's quite obvious deficiencies in character development. Personally, I found the movie pretty interesting throughout, but that was largely because of my interest in intelligence operations and Cold War history. If you could care less about those subjects, you probably won't enjoy the movie at all because it simply fails to forge any kind of emotional bond between you and the characters.

As curious as I was about this movie it had me dazed. The 'Good Shepherd' always struck me symbol for Christianity. Shepherds look after their flocks so the sheep can be killed and eaten. What's good about that? Fortunately, sheep don't have the intelligence to be paranoid. With Bourne Identity movies under his belt, Matt Damon has a good pedigree to play spy movies. Is this one a killer or dead on arrival? With a budget of $85m, we've got Oscar-winning actors, writers, cinematographers, and more stars than flocks by night ever get to see. Pet project of actor-turning-director, Robert De Niro, "The Good Shepherd" tells a story of the CIA from its early days, weighing in at just under three hours. The scene before the opening credits is the one which the whole movie revolves around once that's miss you won't get it. This is a shame, because it's a tantalisingly mysterious and artistically shot.

This movie is told from Damon's point of view, its scope is epic, and covering the years from 1939 before the CIA was even a speck in President Truman's eye, to 1961 and the Bay of Pigs. We see the founding years, the London Blitz, post-war reconstruction in Berlin, and increasingly intricate machinations as the Cold War gathers pace. Angelina Jolie doesn't feature in much of the movie, but when she does, she' get into character very well. It's enough to make you wish she would put down her excellent humanitarian work long enough to take on more of the challenging parts for which is so eminently capable.

Robert de Niro (got to love him), in the director's chair, is sadly the weakest link. Although he handles it professionally, almost magisterially, he lacks the experience to slowly build momentum, convey gradual moral decay, or make this the Godfather standard-bearer of CIA films. He's done a fine job - just bitten off a bit more than he can chew. What he deserves credit for is attempting a classic depiction of one of the world's most important institutions and pulling it off with considerable dignity; if not quite the artistic flourish that he would have aspired to, given that his mentors are people like Francis Ford Coppola (who is the executive producer). With sufficient dedication, it is easy to imagine De Niro pulling off an Oscar for direction in a future film: his grasp is very broad, and all it needs is a little tweaking.

At 2 hours and 47 minutes this thing plods along and the worse thing about the DVD package is the extras are only "deleted scenes" meaning they actually edited this movie? What was it originally, an over 3-hour epic?

I was pleading telepathically for Matt Damon's character to morph into Jason Bourne and start slapping people to wake up out of their comatose-like acting. Despite heavy hitters such as Angelina Jolie's lips, William Hurt's wig and Alec Baldwin's gut showing up to gain screen time, apparently Robert De Niro was too lazy to actually lift himself from a chair during two scenes in this movie.

A complete mess at attempting to "explain" the CIA's rise in a movie. maybe it does depict accurately how the CIA started, works and goes about its business. All I can say on celluloid it's not worthy of watching unless you enjoy paint drying while waiting for a bus that never comes. Excuse the analogy but this topic is better served in book form or as a legit documentary. As a movie, this thing is a total snoozer.

At least the depth of this movie was lost on my husband and I!! I was so extremely disappointed in this movie. It was very very slow. I understand the idea of CIA and whispers, but this was ridiculous.

The movie was lacking in consistency of it's intrigue, so that you lose the point of where the plot is going, and why you even care. Again, the historical reference to the Bay of Pigs brings forth curiosity of what 'based on fact/story' will the CIA's involvement be - but it's frankly a lot of mediocre buildup to a dull final turnout.

Which I must point out is mainly due to character development that leaves a lot to be desired AND dramatic scenes that plunge back into a boring pace SO quickly, that you forgot there was top name actors in it at all. The headline actors in the movie are practically cameos - Jolie's character is the only one who develops through the course of the movie, and apparently the only one to 'age' either. Matt Damon's character is so silent and dark, its overwhelming, and you begin to wonder if you left your movie on mute as you watch..... drifting into your naptime.

Bringing me to the biggest complaint: The general talking level in the movie. Heinous to say the least. Either the actors speaking voice was far too low or someone's accent got in the way so badly, that both my husband and I had to rewind at least a dozen times to hear again or understand what someone said....and where it applied to the meandering plot.

Seriously, shame on whoever hailed it the "Godfather" of CIA movies. It was anything but. I found it very boring and a sorry perception of what the `start' of the CIA was all about. It was just too slow, quiet and off-beat. Waste of a purchase, sorry to say.

This movie has a great cast but nothing to go with it. It drags on and on with practically nothing to keep your interest. Sometimes you even wonder what the heck is happening and where they are going with the storylines. Frankly, I was expecting a lot more out of this movie. Very disappointed, sorry to say. The 3 star rating goes to the cast only. I would have liked to give them more because they did a great job, but then it would have boost the rating for the movie, and I didn't want this.

This movie just goes on and on

And takes up so much time

I watched, and then I had to nap

Before I wrote this rhyme

The early roots of CIA

A group named Skull and Bones

We know that spies do much more than

Just tap the telephones

Secret agents, Russian spies

A clear and present danger

Remember not to trust a soul

Neither a friend nor stranger

I'd hate to think that super spies

Lead lifestyles so depressing

Friendless, loveless, and alone

Just watching and assessing

When it comes down to the crunch

When heavy lies the crown

Your country or your family

Which one will you let down?

The casting line-up sure looks great

But therein lies the flaw

Just trying to keep track of them

Will make your brain cells raw

The lead role is a horrid man

He's cold and unappealing

Judging people, breaking hearts

Without sparing a feeling

Damon's perfect for the part

Jolie just doesn't fit

Her fire flared for just two scenes

Then they extinguished it

If you're a fan of spy movies

And love the cloak and dagger-ing

You'll probably enjoy this one

But it's really not that staggering

Amanda Richards