The Good Shepherd Reviews

Thought provoking

Now if you were expecting a rip roaring ride here I would think again. This is a an intelligent thriller/drama that delivers on the premise suggested. Damon is ever reliable, Jolie a tad underused, but some stellar support lends weight.

Overall one for those that want to immerse themselves.

BORING!!!!!!

I was really looking forward to seeing this. We had tickets to see the preview last week. Everyone in the line waiting to go in were also enthusiastic. The list of great actors and the subject matter made me think that this was going to be a great movie.

OH HOW WRONG I WAS.

I have never been so bored...... an hour in and I still felt nothing was happening, I didn't care for the characters, the long conversations and scenes with nothing going on were tedious. An hour and 15 minutes in I saw some people leaving....they were seated right by the door....how lucky they were. If I hadn't been in the middle of a row I think I would have left also.

If it hadn't been for an ever so small twist near the end (which was predictable) then I would say that it was really non-eventful.

As we left the cinema there was silence....... it would seem that others felt the same as us. We had wasted nearly 3 hours of our life watching a lot of self-indulgent drivel. Perhaps if it had been a reasonable hour and a half I wouldn't feel so angry and disappointed.

How stupid is the general public ?

This was an excellent film that even drew a tear at the end.

Matt Damon gave one of his best performances as the man who masterminded the cold war, yet underneath it all was trapped in his role and life as much as anyone else.

Quite why it has recieved so many negative reviews I don't know, perhaps everyone who wrote a bad review should stick to rom/coms.

If politics or history is a bit much much for you than stay away.

Being 30 (and not alive at the time of the Bay of Pigs) I am still very familiar with it (Isn't everyone? One of the biggest mistakes of the cold war)

As to reviewers who are not 'into secret society films' maybe you shouldn't rent movies (with historical basis) about the CIA !

Good to see an intelligent film !!

A little long but a pretty good film. If you have very little up there and you are into purposeless constant action, special effects and pathetic plots, this film may not be for you. If, on the other hand, you are interested in world affairs, how the secret agencies work behind the scenes, the sort of life these people have and films with complex historical and emotional plots, then it is for you. It is very John Le Carre. I would suggest that if one finds it 'boring' it is probably because either: one is not interested in the subject or one has not understood the content. Do not wish to mention specifics in order not to spoil it for others. Good film, you will be putting things together afterwards. .

Underrated

Upon release in the UK, I felt this film was given some fairly harsh reviews - mainly on the basis that it was overly long and boring. It is long, and therefore, owing to its pace, not the best film to see in a cinema. But it isn't boring.

The film focuses on the roots of CIA - the reasons for which it was established, 'suitable recruits' upon whom it preyed and its impact upon their lives. It doesn't sell out by dropping in unneccesary action scenes and its pace / lack of 'popcorn' moments helps keep the film credible. Others have tried to maintain this direction and failed dismally.

The Good Shepherd should be commended in that it appears to make the world of the secret service believable. Long, drawn out, slow processes which in this film, are expertly woven. I'm not claiming to know anything about the inner workings of espionage but I'd imagine there's more paperwork than dodging men in overcoats.

Downsides are the ageing of the characters - particularly Matt Damon. Must have been a dilemma for De Niro given the calibre of actor he cast as his leading man. However, a 50 yr old Damon just isn't convincing. He still looks 25 - or 30 at a push.

Well worth a look though not a film to dip in and out of. If you like espionage then don't miss this. Devote a full afternoon or evening to it though.

Hard work

This is a fabulous looking movie with a plethora of fine actors but it’s difficult to watch. This isn’t just because it favours a narrative structure where events of 1961 are told alongside a storyline spanning 20+ years from the late 1930s – I mean, Tarantino pulls off more demanding feats. My feeling is that it’s more to do with dodgy storytelling.

The film was produced by Francis Ford Coppola and it shows. There’s a grandeur and elegance reminiscent of The Godfather, as is the darkness of imagery and the way that women are sidelined – not in the body of the film (where they are discarded) but by the film itself. This is the world of the erm ‘intelligent man’s’ film where women aren’t going to be doing anything that’s going to really affect important events but if there’s any doubt that they might you just have them removed.

I’ve read earlier reviews and disagree that a successful enjoyment of this movie is dependent upon intelligence – or being male, although I think that might help. What I do think is that, whichever gender, if the predominantly male world of espionage/film noir/political murder is comfortable for you then maybe you will give it the attention it needs, and work with the plot.

Because work you must. The narrative style is choppy and new characters are introduced with little differentiation or explanation. Interest in the character’s development is unlikely to carry you along because we’re offered so little motivation for anything any of them do – apart from a faint ‘Rosebud’ explanation of the main character. Plus you can’t always hear what the characters are saying. Very Scorsese.

It’s a classy-looking film but for me it was ultimately a failure. I just didn’t care about any of the people in it. What’s more interesting is the thought that maybe there’s a new genre; the thinking man’s movie. ie one in which meaning is so obfuscated that it makes the viewer who gets it think he is very smart indeed.

a film for adults

an enthralling film,but strictly for the older people who remember the Bay of Pigs disaster;either read up about it before you watch it or don't bother-certainly not one for the 15-30 demographic-thank goodness for De Niro for making a film for adults

[Highly rated reviewer]

disappointing

I was looking forward to this film so much, but terribly disappointed when it came to it. I expected it to be a thoughtful, informative film on the origins of the CIA. It was awful - I expected more on the OSS - CIA transition. Matt Damon can act but was horribly miscast here (and Angelina Jolie can also actually act and had nothing to do). Badly scripted, and (strike me down with a feather) badly directed - I have to say I am not a De Niro fan (shock, gasp, horror of horrors). For an insightful picture on the early CIA go rent The Quiet American and leave this one on the shelves.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Overlong averagely interesting...

As films go about the fledgeling CIA they could have been exciting and intreguing, or cloak and dagger suspenseful, this was neither. Probably more realistic as a documentary of the setting up of the CIA , therefore it is not really exciting, it is not really thrilling but is interesting-ish for its subject matter. I would only recommend this if you are really interested in such things, and can spare 2 hours 40 minutes of your time. Otherwise, reasonable as it is, this isn't for you.

A Big Turn Off

The subject mater is in my sphere of interest; Cuban Missile Crisis, World War II espionage and so forth, the cast looking promising; Matt Damon, Robert De Niro and Michael Gambon and the reviews were split, it’s hard not to see why. It’s not very often I have to actually turn a film off but this I did after a seemingly endless battle to ascertain whether anything would ever happen in this film.

A real let-down and obviously more suited to be a hefty spy novel than a feature film.