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

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.

If you're out to see a movie soon, this is one that should be on the top of your list. An all-star cast and an intriguing story isn't all that this movie has. It has some great performances from both Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie that are likely to get some award nominations.

I won't give any spoilers, I'll just give my background and overall opinion. When I saw the commercials, I thought it seemed interesting, but not interesting enough to get me out of my seat right now to go see it. It just didn't seem to have anything totally different than other movies, other than the combination of actors. Since I just got to see it anyway, I realized that it's one of those movies that ends up being better than you think it would be.

Matt Damon, as always, plays a good serious guy who's smart, savvy, and dedicated to his job. It kind of reminded me of his characters in The Departed and the Bourne Identity, except it's in a different situation and setting. His performance in this role was very fitting and believable.

Angelina Jolie surprisingly worked well with this role. In the commercials I thought she was a little too wild compared to Matt Damon's calm character, but she really brought out the emotion of a wife who felt shut out and didn't have a complete relationship with and understanding of her husband.

Robert DeNiro of course was great. It was a nicely added touch to an already good movie.

While I wouldn't say it's as factual as the History Channel, I think the subject of the movie does put good insight on the history of the CIA. I think people who are into government/politics and history would like the storyline. It does focus quite a bit on his family relationship and how it is affected by his job in the CIA, and I'm sure any couple who has been in a similar situation would understand it.

Overall, the movie was better than I thought and I would recommend it to movie-goers, especially those who like suspense and any of the main characters.

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.

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.