User reviews

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.

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

Before I go on to praise the good points of THE GOOD SHEPHERD, I should mention at the start that the film badly needed some judicious editing. There are many scenes that go on for too long a time and are badly in need of some artful editing to get the point across just as well.

Aside from length, everything else about the film is on the plus side--the handsome cinematography, the vast amount of settings, the background score that adds to the drama, and the performances of the entire cast which are uniformly good. I'm not a great admirer of ANGELINA JOLIE as an actress, but here I think she demonstrated skill at suggesting the loneliness, frustrations and jealousies of a woman whose life has to remain outside the boundaries of her husband's job with the CIA. Through a series of detailed vignettes, the murky world of an agent's life of deception within the government is sharply observed.

More of a character study of Edward Wilson (played in stolid, very serious fashion by MATT DAMON) than a straightforward spy yarn, it manages to hold the interest even though it uses the flashback method of storytelling that is apt to confuse a viewer if it isn't done well. But here again, there is a flaw--it covers a span of twenty or more years but the aging of the central character is never quite convincing enough. Damon never looks that much older than his grown son--whereas a few gray hairs might have helped considerably. As his grown son, EDDIE REDMAYNE does reasonably well as the man seeking his father's approval.

As for the supporting players in this story about one man's experiences in the newly developing CIA, JOHN TURTURRO does an outstanding job as a tough inquisitor and MICHAEL GAMBON is outstanding as a security risk with homosexual tendencies. ALEC BALDWIN has little to do but is intense enough as one of the agency's top men and others in the cast maintain credibility all the way through.

The story itself is rather problematic in that nothing is what it seems and not all the information is readily given to the viewer in a way that makes sense. This is partly the fault of the script and partly the fault of director Robert De Niro who also assumes a small role effectively.

But still, despite the handicap of being too long (and a bit too involved at certain points), it makes for fascinating viewing and is the kind of film you dare not divert your attention from for a moment. If you do, you are liable to miss an essential plot point.

Summing up: Highly recommended for anyone with a keen interest in espionage dramas.

"The Good Shepherd" is my second best film of 2006. A lot of people who have seen it will think differently and I can understand that. This film is not for everyone, but the viewers who have a love for US History, The Cold War, CIA, Espionage, or Spy films should be pleased with "The Good Shepherd." It is very subtle, but extremely effective.

"The Good Shepherd" is told from a series of flashbacks during a two week mission to find the significance of a document that was sent to the house of Edward Wilson by an anonymous person(s). We see the rise of Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) from his ranks as a Skull and Bones member to the head of the Counter Intelligence section of CIA.

Robert De Niro directs this epic, near-masterpiece, of the creation of CIA through one mans eyes, Edward Wilson. Matt Damon gives a great performance and one of his best along with "The Departed" and "Good Will Hunting." Damon plays Edward Wilson who starts off as a Yale graduate and Skull and Bones member. He is recruited by an FBI Agent (Alec Baldwin) to spy on his poetry professor Dr. Fredrick's (Michael Gambon), who is believed to have set up a Nazi organization and is enlisting students and faculty members. Edward agrees to spy on his professor after some talking into and gets the names of the people Dr. Fredrick's has enlisted, which leads to his firing on the basis of his political beliefs.

On Deer Island (Skull and Bones retreat) he meets Margaret "Clover" Russell (Angelina Jolie) who seeks out Edward immediately and finds something about him quite intriguing. Matt Damon plays "the man made out of stone" giving little to no emotional reaction to anything and just about everything. Edward Wilson is a man of few words, but he chooses wisely what few words he speaks.

Edward Wilson falls in love with Laura, played wonderfully by Tammy Blanchard- a deaf women- but their relationship comes to an abrupt end as Edward finds that Margaret has become pregnant with his child and Edward is to do what is expected of him. This means he will have to leave Laura and marry Clover. A week after their marriage Edward has to go overseas during WWII, mostly working out of Germany, but is sent to London and joins the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), by General Bill Sullivan (Robert De Niro).

After the war Germany is crumbling and Edward Wilson is climbing the ranks garnering more and more trust. The Soviets are now looking to acquire as many scientists as possible. In Berlin, Edward Wilson meets his adversary, codename "Ulysses," and the back and forth battle between Wilson (His codename is "Mother") and Ulysses is something to really behold and some of the best scenes in the film take part during their back and forth battle of disinformation and counter intelligence and deception and infiltration of spies sent into one another's operations and then each adversary takes out these spies, then sends the "message" that these spies were found and disposed of. Was that confusing? Neither seems to gain much of any ground on each other until the end of the film where Ulysses sends a spy into Wilson's Agency and get's valuable information from someone very close to Edward Wilson. This information ruins the "Bay of Pigs" invasion which turns out to be a costly loss and damaging defeat. Wilson has to make a tough decision between his family and his country.

Edward Wilson was a man of selflessness who put his entire life into his country and did what he could do with his son. He makes sacrifices for his country and for his son. He sacrifices his time and relationship with his family for his country. He sacrifices his true love with Laura and marries Margaret for his son. If you were going to sum up Edward Wilson it probably would be best to use the term "selfless." Everything he does is for his country and the future of it. We never see him do much of anything for his own personal joy. This kind of behavior leads to a marriage that crumbles and falls apart. He plays the protector and is forced to do things such as have people killed and interrogated for the greater good. All over an idea- Communism.

I loved it. It may take a few viewings to fully understand the complexities of this film, but it is well worth it and an intense film with some great action and conversation throughout the film.

9.7/10

After enduring trailer after trailer with endless stings of explosions, ridiculous CG-assisted stunts and mindless action, I felt very rewarded with an intelligent and intriguing film that defies the status quo of bigger and louder is better.

The Good Sheperd doesn't insult your intelligence, it stimulates it, sometimes confuses it, and forces you to look several layers beneath the surface. It feels like a throwback to another era of films when the complexity of a character was of greater importance than spectacle.

De Niro took a page from his producer's best work, Francis Ford Coppola, emulating films like The Godfather, The Conversation and Apacalypse Now. The drama rises not from the usual blatant conventional devices but rather by raising questions because of what we're not told and not shown. It requires a great deal of courage to use this style as films have gravitated more and more toward assuming the average moviegoer is of substandard intelligence. The scope of the film is enormous, yet the point of view is narrowly focused to be seen through the eyes of one man. There are a dozen of subplots, but all are carefully tied into the through-line of the story to match the main character's progression.

The film may require some understanding of American history from WWII through the Kennedy administration. It starts with the later years of the story, The Bay of Pigs debacle, and traces the steps that lead to it, one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of U.S. foreign policy. I found it a bit annoying that Matt Damon's character, Edward Wilson, barely seemed to age in the film while others around him did (the best way to determine his age is whether he's wearing wire-rimmed or horn-rimmed glasses), but it didn't ruin the film for me.

Overall though, definitely one of the best films of 2006. A rare film that makes you want to think and understand, rather than forget.

I found the core storyline not hard to follow, but because they chose to include so many under-explained tangents (it came off as a lame attempt to make it seem like it had more depth and girth than it actually did), the overall result is that the movie felt muddled. Add that to the problematic pacing/awful editing job, and this movie becomes the epitome of potential without successful followup.

I saw it in a theater, so I got the chance to watch it intently, without interruption, but I kept asking my friend what time it was.... even as early as only an hour in! Not a great or even remotely interesting movie by any means, and some seem to be fixated on the idea that it *must* be great because it's a movie about the CIA directed by De Niro that doesn't have explosions/car chases or romance/sentimentality. But in the end, this movie is totally forgettable. It's not a deep or extremely intellectual movie, but rather just a simple story in a convoluted veil, attempting to hide that there's not much substance to this.

Also, depth-less performance by Damon.

Though this movie was hailed as one of the greatest movies of this year, the Godfather of spy movies, I must say... poor spy movie genre. Is this really the best it's seen?

Overall, what little strength this film had came from the minor acting parts, namely the performances by Tammy Blanchard and Michael Gambon. Though to be fair, the major actors didn't have much to work with. Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie were both flat and boring. I wanted to smack all the actors (except Gambon and Blanchard) in this movie at one point or another. Perhaps this film would have been better with more interesting dialogue, a more exciting plot. Maybe it was doomed from the start. I don't know.

I really wanted to like this movie. I came into the theater expecting an exciting, well-executed dramatic thriller, but came out almost completely empty-handed. My whole family thought it was a disappointment. We all agreed DeNiro should stick to acting. But there's little to do now except pray this movie doesn't get an Oscar.

I really wanted to love the Good Shepherd, but maybe like the main character of Edward Wilson it's a hard one to love even if one can admire/respect it in some ways. It's a film cluttered by being both too long and too short, where the pace feels plodding at times and with some unnecessary beats, and at the same time not developing quite enough on the points that could be more interesting. It's one of those films about a government agency (in this case it's inception) that I ended up liking more for what good things I saw than for the overall whole bang of the picture. I do have to give credit where it's due, however. Matt Damon, on a roll it seems after Syriana and the Departed, is at his most under-stated (and rightfully so, probably taking cues from Robert De Niro, a man who has under-stated sometimes as his bread & butter) in the role of Wilson, a man who sacrifices his own sense of truth for the honor of protecting the country, even if it means putting his own family into complete doubt about his character.

Psychologically I was always in tune with what was going on, and like last year's Munich there's a good sense of demystification that goes on with how an organization is run/starts up. And De Niro has assembled such a top-notch cast it's hard to complain on that front (with great character actors like John Tuturro, Michael Gambon, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, William Hurt, Joe Pesci). What ended up tugging me away from seeing this as a better film was the storytelling, or the sort of pull from really feeling connected with the material. Things diverge around in sub-plots, and sometimes it's gripping (like the torture scene with the Russian where LSD is used to try and reveal his name), but sometimes not so much, as with Wilson's affair with another woman. This side of it is a little murky for me- Angelina Jolie's character has an interesting start, with her practically jumping all over him when they meet, and once they marry and have a kid she becomes the dour note of his existence, even as he loves his son. I would've liked to have seen more about her, why she decided to be with him in the first place aside from the ultra-ambiguous "you look like husband material" line. It's also saddening, on the character-actor front, to see Joe Pesci (who hasn't acted in 8 years) in such a thankless part; I thought he would be there for more scenes, but it seemed like De Niro added him in as an afterthought.

What is compelling, however, does show De Niro as a very smart director with enough class to not spoon-feed the audience 'things' that happen. It's got a main part to it that is worthwhile to tell, which is Wilson's connection to his son, and Wilson's connection to a Russian counterpart to his CIA operative as a Russian operative nicknamed Ulysses (there's one scene I love that involved a violin, I won't say which). A lot of what the Good Shepherd brings makes for some good talk after it ends, but more so about what didn't work then what did. It has the makings to be one of the finest epics ever made in this decade, but sometimes even someone like Damon almost becomes TOO understated in his part- bordering on wooden- in being secret to the point of inertia. In the end, the Good Shepherd gives enough to subvert the spy film specifically on choices of mood and character, but it's also confused in how it decides to spend its time getting to the story that really counts.

I had some mixed feelings about this film. First of all, it is so long that to sustain an interest in the frozen expressions of Matt Damon's characters through almost three hours is quite a challenge. At times I believe that he is actually becoming human. I'm not sure that we are really privy to his ghosts, even considering the letter from his father. When a movie makes the human beings so very cold, it begs some big questions. First of all, would be psychosis. Yes, I know there are patriotic zealots. This is just too much. On the other hand, this is a really interesting part of history. It is in the period where media didn't have its tentacles in everything; where spies could play at being spies and politicians didn't have to look over their shoulders. We also had the Russians and their potential on the minds of everyone, including school children. I think if Damon's character had just had a second dimension, it would have played a lot better. Even when his son comes into the picture, we know who his real child is. Like Jean Hackman in "The Conversation" the paranoia runs so deep that he couldn't get out if he could. He has sold all his options.

"The Good Sheperd" is long and very detailed drama portraying the beginning of the CIA. Matt Damon plays Edward Wilson who is a privileged youth from a wealthy family. His father commits suicide when Edward is very young because he had betrayed his country, but before he ends his life he leaves a note for his family. Edward picks up the note and does not read it for most of the movie. As the movie goes on, Edward goes to college, joins a secret society, and finds love, but his life takes a bad turn when he impregnates Clover Russell, played by Angelina Joli, and is forced to give up his love at the time and marry Clover. In the midst of all this, Robert DeNiro and William Hurt are recruiting Damon to start an intelligence agency. As soon as he is wed, Edward receives his orders to go over seas. From this point, the film takes a serpentine approach with a lot of smoke and mirrors. Through all of this, Matt Damon becomes more and more cold and deceptive towards his family leading up to an ending that fits the movie to a "T". Robert DeNiro in his sophomore effort as a director creates a movie that drags in spots, but overall is a solid story about the start of the CIA.

Excellent.

The good shepherd is an excellent film. The reason this film was dubbed the "Godfather of spy movies" is because ala the "Godfather" De Niro uses real life situations involving the CIA and blends them together creating a story around the lead character played by Matt Damon. In addition,several great performances in character parts complement Damon's performance, notably Michael Gambon and John Turturro were both superb. You shouldn't view this film expecting to be blown out of your seats, it is deep, and requires strict attention to detail. My wife and I viewed this film in a packed movie house and we were very certain that half the people in the audience didn't understand or appreciate what they had just seen. I am not saying you need to be of great intellect to enjoy this film, but one of the things De Niro manages to do is bring back a thinking man's drama that is often not seen in today's attention deficit, shoot them up, bang – bang movies. This film makes it obvious that Directors Bertolucci and Leone have left a huge impression on De Niro and the result is a movie that both would be proud of.

Robert De Niro's second directorial outing is a passionate but strenuous account of the earnest rise to the corrupted fall of the US Central Intelligence Agency as seen through one main operatives' decades of experience. The lengthy, detail-specific, at times tedious pace will surely be off-putting to more casual movie-goers and all who are not inherently enthralled by the infinite webs of deception surrounding those in highly secretive governmental positions, though anyone choosing to stick it out may be pleasantly rewarded. Much like his script for Munich, Eric Roth infuses a factual urgency that compliments the fictional characterization to provide viewers with the best of both worlds. Only unlike Munich, The Good Shepherd's ambitious two and a half decade plot-line will bog down many participants with covert operation details at the expense of character intimacy and development (written intentionally that way to portray Matt Damon's ultra-secretive presence, but still suffering a lack of character explanation as a result).

It is only late in the third act that this chronologically impaired film fleshes out some of the more personal and potent themes the labyrinthine story of mistrust and moral ambiguity provides, culminating with a conclusion that will somehow justify much of the muddled exchanges bloating up the run time. With a slightly hypnotic tension, De Niro manages to take all of the paranoid, world-view sentiment that is supposed to frame the C.I.A's often malicious intentions for the audience, and by the end spins it into a cohesive whole centering around this main character's eroding consciousness supplemented by his encroaching apathy.

Thankfully, Damon is able to fulfill his end of the bargain by providing some of his most subtle work yet. It is often hard for me to be engaged by this actor, but lately you can tell he has been working on his game, and it has never been more obvious when watching his huge role as hollow-everyman-with-secrets Edward Bell Wilson. He is able to suppress nearly all of his less believable "charisma" in favor of the cold, calculated exchanges that give his character a more believable persona then what we are used to seeing from him, congratulations on rising to the occasion Mr. Damon. Ultimately the supporting cast gets the job done, but cannot help but feel superfluous when revolving around Damon's principal motivations.

At times, De Niro's equation of secretive governmental policies to the same values that underscored much of his gangster genre work seems to rob individual scenes of some integrity, but for the most part the details are unveiled in a way that will appease both hardened C.I.A. buffs and more casual moviegoers alike. Certainly not for everyone though, those willing to sit through some unnecessary (though historically relevant), insider interpretations of past US events should be rewarded by the eventual formation of something entirely more substantial then the dry and cryptic details the movie frustratingly prides itself upon.

This a very long movie. It's a bit confusing unless you intend to rewatch the beginning after watching the end. Then ... you can understand the beginning better. Sound confusing? It shouldn't be this hard to watch a movie. Plus, the first 2 1/4 hours of this nearly 3 hour movie is kind of boring.

The movie is basically about the life of a man during the start of the CIA. We follow him from his induction into an elite fraternity (or order) into his career with the formation of the CIA.

If it doesn't sound interesting, that's because that's all there really is. Unless you're a CIA history buff and are interested in this stuff, it's a bit boring for the average viewer. There is only one place where there is a real plot - and that's right at the end for about 15 minutes.

Furthermore, the way the movie is chopped up and given how long it is, it's likely you'll forget the what happened at the beginning by the time you get to the end.

For the average viewer, this movie isn't really worth the time. For the CIA history aficionado - knock yourself out.

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.

You can imagine that when it came to editing this film that they were scared that might lose for ever a few minutes of fine acting. Yes all these actors can act and they do it very well. They do it in worthy style in hushed voices for about two and half hours. But surely there is more to a good film than fine performances? In an effort to bolster the film they have stolen a central strand from 'The Conversation' (the reconstruction and deciphering of a taped conversation over a period of time) and mixed it with an array of characters who might have stepped from some mirror version of 'The Godfather' featuring families of WASPs and for good measure thrown in the worst part of 'Eyes Wide Shut' - namely the secret society that everyone who is everyone is a member of but of course is so secret no one knows about it. I suspect that if about 50 minutes were taken out of the film and the plot tightened up and if Matt Damon did not look perpetually adolescent then one might finish watching this feeling the experience was worthwhile. As it is some will be fooled by the smoke and mirrors that they have seen a masterpiece and others will have fallen asleep.

Robert De Niro has crafted a story about espionage, lies and the American way in his second directorial bout. As De Niro borrowed from Martin Scorsese for his first film, A Bronx Tale, he borrows heavily from Francis Ford Copolla in this case and borrows well. This time around De Niro focuses on the inception of the C.I.A, and their involvement in various Government coups outside the United States, all in the name of freedom. Matt Damon stars as Edwards, the perfect arian specimen, bread into Ivy League stature and inducted into a secret society whose predecessors included ex-presidents, senators and congressmen. If there was ever a piece of solid film-making, The Good Shepherd would be it, never seeming too boring or overbearing in its 170 minute runtime. Paralleling the Copolla tradition, De Niro tells this story in a non-linear fashion, which ties in the two stories closer and closer as the film drives to its finally.

The Good Shepard is not as good as A Bronx Tale, but on its own this film's character development does embody a larger scope, and deals with a much more global aspect than its predecessor. There have been many films like this, including Spy Games, that lack the mature and authentic inspiration that The Good Shepherd nailed in its entirety, whether this particular story was true or not. De Niro's role, or cameo in this case, seemed a little forced, and too contrived, but can be coped with, as his role is short and easily forgetful. Some of the dialog is also flawed, due to the scripts weakness in dealing with the underdeveloped female characters, thrown into the film for sheer tragic effect. The overall story, dealing with war-time, both intelligence and counter-intelligence, parallel the way wars are fought today. There are many aspects of the film that, deliberately or not, most likely the prior, mirror how Americans view threats outside the United States. Not only are non-democratic governments viewed as threats, but they are taken down by what this film proves is the ''heart and soul" of the United States, the C.I.A.

Despite the films political message, that might not be pleasantly received by most , and may be viewed by even more as an anti-American film, this is a more American film than initially perceived. The Good Shepherd tries to show the hypocrisy's and sheer ignorance that leads to many of the choices a government makes today, and ironically made the same mistakes in their choices years ago. Much of the film deals with war quietly and the basis that wars are fought not only in the battlefield, but more importantly in offices while wearing suites and ties. De Niro captures these actions brilliantly in this political thriller, and will draw a lot of unavoidable criticism due to his choice of material.