Raisons d'état

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

"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

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.

I had a huge advantage before watching this on DVD. I was told by a good friend that it was extremely slow, and be prepared to be bored out of "my mind." Well, I wasn't bored, maybe because I now expected a slower, non-action-packed CIA-type film....and I wasn't disappointed. Actually, I liked it, mainly because of the cinematography. This is stunning in its photography. Kudos to Director Robert De Niro and Director of Photography Robert Richardson for their work in here.

I also appreciated the low profanity in here. After watching "The Departed," this far-cleaner film was a treat for the ears, too. Yes, there are a handful of 'f-words," but not much else including no blasphemy.

But, I agree that this is a very slow film and it helps to know that in advance. It's also one you have to follow closely and time periods shift back and forth, mainly from 1961 back to the early 1940s.

The story winds up presenting an interesting question which is posed to Matt Damon's character, "Edward Wilson." He plays an extremely loyal CIA man, a guy who is straight-arrow and one whose priority is country-first. The dilemma occurs at the end when he must choose between what's best for his son or his country.

It's a thought-out, interesting story that takes a few sides to the left of center more than the right, but is not really a movie with any heavy-handed political agenda, mainly pointing out what it takes to be a successful "spy" and that this unemotional detachment can be rough on some people and their families.

Damon heads an all-star cast that includes Angeline Jolie (who looks spectacular as a woman in the early 1940s), Billy Crudup, Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, Timothy Hutton and many others.

This movie, I suspect, will either put you to sleep or fascinate you.

It starts on April 16, 1961. Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) is a top American spy. When the Bay of Pigs don't go well, everybody is suspicious of a leak. Then it flashes back to 1939 Yale University. He is a student and recruited by Bill Sullivan (Robert De Niro) to spy on a professor with German ties. He is forced into a shotgun wedding with Margaret (Angelina Jolie). The war starts and he goes to Britain working for the fledging American spy agency. He would become one of the best at counter-intelligence but his family life suffers tremendously with his wife and son (Eddie Redmayne).

As far as I'm concern, director Robert De Niro is 2 for 2 so far. Matt Damon puts in a deadly quiet performance. This is no Bond movie. There are no flashy gadgets and movie contraptions. This feels like the real thing. A spy would obviously not talk about spy stuff. The internalization and the paranoia seems to hit the right notes. The family dysfunction follows logically. I guess people who want the excitement will have trouble with the quietness. I personally found it intriguing.