Problematic but not totally sucky
Written: Jun 08 '07
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Bang For The Buck |
 |
|
|
Pros: Some interesting plot twists, moments of brilliance in cinematography
Cons: Too long, too repetitive, VERY stiff main character
The Bottom Line: A decent rainy day movie if you are a fan of anyone involved. It is long, but you can divide it up over a rainy afternoon and not miss much.
|
|
|
| paulsavage's Full Review: The Good Shepherd |
The Good Shepherd is one of the more problematic films I’ve seen in a long time. It is difficult either to recommend it or tell anyone to avoid it. If you like spy flicks, then it isn’t a bad one; if they bore you then it is likely it will bore you.
The plot is divided between the professional and the personal. Professionally, Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) is an Eli Skull and Bones, meaning both well healed and well connected. Through these connections he becomes a spy prior to and during the war. His specialty is counter-intelligence. His career spans a little over three decades. He shifts from Army military intelligence in both England and Germany to the US where he is a major player in Cold War counter-intelligence and eventually head of that function at the CIA. The second plot is the personal. This one is where nearly all of the plot details will reveal twists. All I can really reveal about this portion is that it is very complex and is the true engine that drives the film.
This is a spy movie, so going any deeper into the plot would reveal too much—meaning in the vernacular of such people, if I tell you I have to kill you.
TOP SECRET—if you don’t want to know the plot, avoid the analysis
The most problematic thing about the film is that it jumps around too much. The film covers Edward’s life at Yale in 1939, in England and Germany from 1940-1945, in OSS counter-intelligence from 1946-circa 1957, and the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. You are given indications that the story jumps by the information at the bottom of the screen, but this doesn’t stop it from seeming jerky and out of control. If the goal is to create a puzzle, then the film successfully does that, but I take issue with it (and I consider myself sophisticated with movies and with non-traditional narratives). The main reason is that the film is nearly three hours long; in contrast, Memento was about half as long, so seemingly randomness of the narrative not only fit the structure, the number of out of order ‘facts’ you had to keep juggling was relatively small.
The main focus is on an audio tape and fuzzy photograph secretly slid under the door of Edward’s house after he returns from the Caribbean where he oversaw the failed invasion of Cuba. The spy parts of the film jump around the armature of the investigation to determine the contents of the tape and the photo.
The spy movie portion works pretty much like all spy movies. Everyone is suspect and more than a few are killed—not all of whom deserved it (oh well, that is the price of keeping the world safe or some junk). For a cloak and dagger story, The Good Shepherd is a bit more dagger and the cloaks are replaced with hats. There are a couple of red herrings, but they are weak and don’t really do much to stop you from figuring things out. The title of the film is The Good Shepherd. I imagine it isn’t the great shepherd because Edward seems to make more mistakes than successes. If counter-intelligence bats less than .500, just how effective is it? Is it better to have it if half the time they either miss a mole in their midst or kill the wrong people?
Once you either figure out what is going on or come to it as it happens, there is an event that is up for debate. After my ophthalmologist finished my exam we talked about movies and she had one opinion of this event and I had the opposite (she also said she was not glad to have seen the film—for me this was harder to answer). Edward Jr (Eddie Redmayne), also a CIA operative like his father, is set to marry a mole for the Soviets. This is a bizarre story in itself, but ultimately is neither here nor there. Miriam (Liya Kebede) flies from her village to where she is going to get married. Before she gets there, the pilot and copilot of the plane open the hatch and toss her out. The question is, who ordered this? My ophthalmologist was convinced that Edward ordered it. I believed that the Soviet agent called Ulysses (Oleg Stefan) ordered it. The reason for this is, while being inducted into Skull and Bones Edward claims the main thing he learned from his father is never to lie (he stays as silent as a statue in honor of dyspepsia rather than open his mouth when he knows what will come out will have to be a lie). The only time he really smiles in the whole movie is when he wishes his son happiness on the day of what was to be his wedding. It is open to interpretation, and depending on your decision, it affects mightily the way you view the film as a whole and Edward specifically.
Before I get to the acting, I have something more personal than not. This may sound Marxist but it isn’t intended to be (but I can totally understand why what I am about to go into would prick a Marxist’s ear). The rampant classism throughout the film removes it so totally from the common sphere it is not that much different than watching a tragedy of errors populated only by various crowned heads. It seems that the entire early American intelligence operatives were not just Elis, but were specifically Skull and Bones. The film is inspired by true events—if this is one of them then I cringe. Remember that I said the whole counter-intelligence operation was less than half successful? If a secret society has to be involved in this messy business, I have to wonder if members of the Benevolent Protectorate of Elks wouldn’t do a better job. The number of black tie gatherings that discussed black operations was overkill and it gave the impression that protecting the country from less than 50% of the foreign (specifically Soviet) spies was entirely a “gentleman’s” pursuit. This is the weakest and most maddening aspect of the film.
Analysis of the twists is complete
The performances were slightly better than average. Michael Gambon, British counter-intelligence, was fantastic. William Hurt, head of what would become the CIA was similarly well placed. Robert De Niro (General Sullivan) was funny, light, and complex; he also directed the film and I can’t help thinking that he gave himself the best lines because he could.
Everyone else does a decent enough job, except Mr. Damon. The problem with him is that he had the same dead expression on his face all the time. If he is a method actor, he purposely ate food that gave him heartburn so he could wear the face of someone whose insides are doing flips. Anyone could do that. I can’t be sure if this is a limitation of the character, or if the choice to have him look facially catatonic was just a poor one.
The film doesn’t suck. It has some interesting and engaging moments, but they are not common enough or handled in a consistent way. If it is raining and you don’t feel like doing anything else, then it probably won’t be a waste of time.
Recommended:
Yes
Movie Mood: Serious Movie
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
paulsavage
|
 in Movies |
|
Member: paul savage
Location: alabama, us
Reviews written: 510
Trusted by: 68 members
About Me:
A puny inexhaustible voice still talking
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.