CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd

Started by velvetotter10 · · 👁 5 views · 6 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants velvetotter10steelstag4Larry Martin11Larry Torres4Susan Sanchez
velvetotter10 velvetotter10 NewcomerOP
3 messages
joined Apr 2007
#1 ·
Caught it last night. AMC, naturally, had to insist on an intermission for the necessary sustenance of exhausted viewers who can't sit still for 160 minutes—but I suppose we’ve grown accustomed to that nonsense by now. Regardless.

A dark masterpiece. It’s been quite some time since I’ve seen a story told with such compelling narrative depth and brilliant cinematography. I was genuinely impressed by the attention to detail; nothing is spoon-fed to you like the mindless drivel found in most modern cinema. Instead, the film trusts the audience to connect the dots and grasp the cause-and-effect relationships on their own terms. It’s a masterstroke how this thread weaves through the entire runtime, demanding active participation if you want to make sense of the whole picture.

The average viewer might find certain nuances and connotations a bit murky, but thanks to the standard American education system, anyone over the age of 28 should be able to recall enough history to contextualize the era being depicted—assuming they actually paid attention in class rather than spending their time terrorizing teachers. In fact, Roth has once again penned a script that is frankly dizzying because of how tightly it adheres to actual historical facts.

The direction is superb; I truly hope a Director's cut eventually surfaces, as it’s painfully obvious from the opening sequences that certain elements were trimmed. de Niro delivered behind the lens at a high level, just as he did with his minor role. The rest of the cast is decent, with the exception of young Edward, whom I simply cannot stand—though perhaps that's just my personal bias regarding his particular aesthetic. Angelina is Angelina, and it was actually refreshing to see her in a film where she—wait for it—actually acts. Even Damon is tolerable, though the makeup department could have aged him up a bit more for the final act, but whatever. Thank God they avoided the mustache trap; someone clearly learned from the ridiculousness seen in "The Aviator."

Aside from a few trivial inconsistencies mentioned on IMDb—which are utterly inconsequential in any meaningful way—The Good Shepherd is easily the best film I’ve seen in years, in every conceivable sense.

All those critics whining about the pacing or claiming it's "slow"—they couldn't be more wrong. A narrative this thorough demands even more time than the final cut provides. This phenomenal cast, the top-tier storytelling, and the unwavering commitment to real events and people (despite the use of pseudonyms) deserves immense praise in an era where even the supposed "smart" majority of films consist mostly of directorial bloat, script failures, or blatant rip-offs of Asian cinema that somehow snag undeserved Oscars.
steelstag4 steelstag4 Active Member
99 messages
joined Dec 2002
#2 ·
Honestly, I wasn't exactly blown away. I totally get what you’re saying in the first half of your post, but I find myself sharing those exact same complaints from the critics you mentioned—it’s just bloated and tedious. It isn't that two and a half hours feels like too much time in general; it's that the pacing is so glacial that I never actually felt like there was a point to any of it. I felt physically drained watching a hundred different shots of Damon just staring blankly into the distance or at the floor. And let's be real, he isn't exactly a powerhouse actor (thankfully, it wasn't an overly demanding role 😁 ). Angie felt pretty forgettable to me as well, and while the son did an okay job, he rubbed me the wrong way just as much as he did you.

Look, I'll concede that the film is smart and meticulously crafted, but it just didn't click for me. Maybe I just wasn't in the right headspace for it. Either way, I don't see myself giving it a second chance.
Larry Martin11 Larry Martin11 Active Member
141 messages
joined Feb 2008
#3 ·
...hmmm...
...reading through what you guys are posting, I kind of see both sides—I agree with some points and disagree with others 🙂 I watched this movie a while back, and I’ve been trying to wrap my head around why I liked certain parts and why other parts felt totally off... though, honestly, it’s easier to spot the mistakes. They aren't so much script issues (though that happens rarely), but more about directing and acting... From a directing standpoint, Robert De Niro really bit off more than he could chew. Not only did he pick such a massive, sprawling theme, but he made it unnecessarily messy with endless time jumps, repetitions, and an obsession with minute details. He got so lost in the weeds that the film basically falls apart halfway through under the weight of everything he tried to cram in. With that many jumps and tangents, you’d expect a seasoned director to handle it better—so how is it any easier for an actor who’s only dipping his toes into directing? Watching it, I felt like the movie lost its compass at times; it was like he just shoved everything he thought *had* to be seen into the frame, hoping the audience would somehow piece the loose ends together... He could have used "footnotes"—the way Winterbott often does—or just limited the constant jumping back and forth, but he didn't. And he refused to cut things that were just dead weight (like those repetitive dinner scenes year after year just to make a point, or the redundant arguments between the spouses that lacked any real punch and could have been said much more concisely...). It ended up with a structure that feels like it belongs in a prestige TV series rather than a movie, even if it runs three hours... Also, spending so much time on these beautiful, descriptive scenes left him with no room for the actual ending. It leaves you with this rushed, low-intensity impression where things being built up slowly never actually finish. Some characters (especially Baldwin) just hang in mid-air, some plot points are rushed shut (like the bank account subplot), and key moments feel unconvincing—specifically that core dilemma regarding family vs. country. The relationship between Edward and Clover should have been the emotional anchor for that, but since we don't really *see* or feel their connection, it's mostly a failure of the acting...
...The biggest "acting" issue has to be (and she's incredibly talented) A. Jolia. For reasons I can't fathom, she plays this powerful, intense woman who breaks down almost instantly as a cheap femme fatale, which pretty much guts half of the central relationship. I don't get why she was cast, aside from her star power helping pull people into a theater for a movie with a pretty grim subject matter. Matt Damon plays a role very similar to his part in The Departed—essentially playing the same guy with a slight thematic twist—and while he isn't bad, he didn't exactly blow me away either, though he is much more convincing than his co-star. Baldwin is just... Baldwin, as usual. Blanchard is fine as Laura, while Hurt and Hutton are above average. As for De Niro, he feels less like an actor here and more like a presence. The most interesting part—though I wouldn't call it a huge surprise since he's always great—is John Turturro. He was brilliant in his small role as Brocca, Edward's quiet "right hand." Turturro plays him with a sort of dual personality: initially a bit of a troublemaker and provocateur, then shifting into this calm, kindly-looking bureaucrat (which De Niro highlights beautifully with close-ups of his eyes, which actually radiate warmth; for a second, he reminded me of that incredible character in a Scorsese film, with that same subtle, unassuming quality). While it seems vague at first, it all clicks during maybe the best scene in the movie—that transformation from "office guy" to predator in a split second, where every gesture suddenly makes sense. After that, seeing him at the end, polished in a perfect suit, is even harder to process. Turturro makes the transition look so effortless that I actually felt bad the movie premiered right after Oscar season; even if this isn't his absolute peak, in a field of mediocre nominees, it would have been unthinkable not to see him in the running for Best Supporting Actor.🙂...but let's be real—one standout performance and a handful of decent ones aren't enough to save a movie. Even a star-studded cast couldn't quite fix Robert De Niro's issues here...
...still, despite how messy, disjointed, and lacking in intensity it felt, the film managed to hit me in a strange way. I actually liked the story—usually, these plots are either totally boring or get completely watered down by some forced romance, but that didn't happen here. I also appreciated that old-school atmosphere woven through the whole thing (even if every era looked more or less the same). Plus, the choice for the protagonist felt grounded and realistic, and I loved that it didn't try to shove "correct" American values down my throat. It offered a very unidealistic—maybe even non-ideological, if that's not too strong a word—look at what "serving your country" actually means... whatever that entails. At the end of the day, I walked out of the theater feeling satisfied. I even caught myself recommending it to people, which I guess is the ultimate sign that it actually worked for me...🙂
Larry Torres4 Larry Torres4 Member
36 messages
joined Jan 2007
#4 ·
Should I go see it or skip?
Susan Sanchez Susan Sanchez Newcomer
1 message
joined Feb 2007
#5 ·
Amanda Taylor said:Should I go see it or skip it?

I can't speak for you, but personally, I think I'll just hold off and wait until it hits Netflix or comes out on Blu-ray.😬
Larry Martin11 Larry Martin11 Active Member
141 messages
joined Feb 2008
#6 ·
...that’s just wrong. IMHO 🙂 Good Shepherd is absolutely a movie you should see on the big screen—purely because of how it looks visually 🙂. As for now? I’d say go ahead and watch it, though with a bit of a caveat: it isn’t exactly a masterpiece (and it’s certainly not some life-changing experience), but there are definitely some standout moments 🙂. Is it a "must-see"? Not really...
Larry Torres4 Larry Torres4 Member
36 messages
joined Jan 2007
#7 ·
I'll head over there and see for myself..

They’re claiming this Blanchard is going to be the next big thing..

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads