World-of-Movies
![]() | Film Details | ![]() | Box Office | ![]() | Movie Directory | ![]() | Store | ![]() |
![]() |
The Good Shepherd (2006) |
Reviews and Comments




extremely and un-necessarily convoluted.I got lost more times than I have fingers watching this movie. The story keeps switching back and forth between 1961-65 and 1939-45. Now it does tell you at the bottom of the screen what year you're in but it switched so mamy times that I got lost once and couldn't figure out if I was in the 40's or the 60's and to tell you the truth at that point of this almost 3 hour movie. I really didn't care. I also had trouble keeping track of who all the characters were. The director does not do a good job of explaining things. You just have to figure it all out for yourself. And though I did watch the whole movie and I do understand what it's about. I think I would have to watch it about 2 more times to really get everything. But I'm just not willing to invest 9 hours on this. I'm sorry I wasted the 3. I watched it with my girlfriend and we kept asking each other "Do you understand what's going on"?, "Who's this person"?, "what year are we in"?
I have other issues with this movie other than the convoluted story. The whole movie is filmed very, VERY, dark! It's like you're watching it with sunglasses on. There's one part in the movie when they get a russian spy to cross to their side, and they pretty much just take him at his word and consider him one of them. Later on in the movie another russian claims to be the same guy and wants to cross and says that the other Russian is a mole. Instead of taking this guy at his word, they torture him for several hours and when he sticks to his story they give him LSD as a truth serum and not only does he STILL stick to his story but he jumps out the window killing himself. All this gives the agents NO reason to believe that the guy they're trusting MIGHT actually be the mole!!! They don't torture him, they don't even question him. They just go on believing him. And guess what. He turns out to be the mole. Matt Damon finds this out by noticing a feather coming out of a book that one of his spy friends gave the mole. He then peels back the inside cover of the book reveiling a passport and other incriminating evidence. I mean this is truly stupid and really made the whole movie stupid. If you're going to make a movie this confusing it better at least be good and make sense and this movie does not. And why is Joe Pessci in this movie??? His Character is meaningless from what I can tell. Robert DiNero - A Bronx Tale this is not! Try again.




How life turns shape usIf there ever was a worn out spy, Matt Damon is definitely the one in his fine portrayal of Edward Wilson, CIA agent from priviledged family and Yale education. I have not seen a character like this since John Le Carre's agent Smiley. Edward is a quiet man, who keeps his emotions and feelings to himself. He is also damaged, since as a child, he witnessed his father's suicide. The emotional void of having a father figure in his life, pushes him towards seemingly caring man such as his mentor at the university and eventually towards career in CIA. Edward is pushed into a marriage to a woman (played by Angelina Jolie) he barely knows and the marriage is doomed from the start. Their son, the bond that keeps the marriage together is also a reminder to both of them of their poor match. As we trace Edward's career thru some of the important events of the cold war, we learn about him as a father, husband, lover and the unscrupulous secret agent. It is difficult to imagine that sensitive young man, interested in poetry and above all loyal to the people close to him would resort to the dread of a life of a spymaster full of secrets and lies. But then, as the film reaches its conclusion we almost get to think of him as a an on the suicide mission of his own. He is not looking into pulling the trigger on himself, but he is walking on the tight rope, close to falling at any time. Then again, he is so worn out and alone, that after al, he has very little to lose in this game. Directed by Robert DeNiro with wonderful cast of actors.




Tedious yet realistic depiction of the birth of the CIAI tried my hardest to fall in love with Robert De Niro's "The Good Shepherd." All the elements were there for a great film - fantastic material (the birth of the CIA and the Cold War), great cast, and more-than-ample budget. Unfortunately, the total is far less than the sum of its parts - and far more tedious.
Matt Damon plays Edward Wilson, privileged Yale undergraduate who gets inducted into America's least-secret secret society, Skull and Bones. Given this access to privilege, Wilson receives a unique opportunity - to get in on the ground floor of America's new secret service, the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA). Over the next few decades, Wilson will play a key part in the evolution of the Cold War.
This should be exciting stuff. Terrific authors have had loads of fun with the very same material - John Le Carre, Robert Littell, James Ellroy - and their novels are riveting page-turners. Thanks in large part to Damon's depiction of Wilson as an extremely cold fish, "The Good Shepherd" is largely an exercise in exposition and tedium. Events transpire, characters grow old or die young, and bitterness and recrimination stalk the land. Sometimes that works in a movie - this is not such an occasion.
Put "The Good Shepherd" on the shelf with the Great Missed Opportunities of recent years - movies that should have been terrific and yet failed to live up to expectations.






















