The Good Shepherd

S

Sad Max

Artful Dodger
Been looking forward to this film since first hearing about it, and wow...was I ever disappointed. Yes, it's well-done technically, yes, there are individual performances and parts of performances that are very, very good...but overall it's a truncated-feeling disjointed mess that in the end doesn't appear to actually be about anything, in particular. Which is kind of surprising, considering the talent that's involved.

Maybe by the closing credits, I was supposed to be left with the sense that, well, no one is honest and nothing is what it appears to be and in the end, there's no one you can trust...but for me that sense was created by poor storytelling, when I would have hoped that it could be created through *good* storytelling.

*sigh*

I'll just have to keep up hope that '300' will be better.
 
Last edited:
I was all set to go see this today until I checked the running time. There have been films I really loved that are only 1:40:00 and they seem to drag by the end. At 2:40:00 I had to cancel my trip to the theater. I just cant bring myself to sit there for 3 hours.

The trailer does look good though.

Maybe tomorrow.

-GageFX
 
Don't be deceived. You see all that talent and you think it's going to be good. Or good shepard. But you have to remember, the talent's only there because DiNero's directing. They didn't sign on because of the script. And speaking of Dinero, have you ever heard Robert Dinero try to talk when he's not acting? It's the most painful trauma-inducing event you will ever take part in (Howard Stern repeatedly makes fun of their interview long ago). Now assume that is the person trying to explain to the actors their motivations and feelings and emotions, etc. The second you said it was a disjointed mess that's the first thing I thought of.
 
i havent seen it but was also really looking forward to this. with eric roth writing i was kinda hoping for another "insider" :D
 
i saw it. great performances by Damon, Tuturro, Hurt, Baldwin, and Billy Crudup. It was shot beautifully, but I too was disappointed in the story. At the end I still didn't know what the film was really about.

On the point of DeNiro talking during intervies. Dustin Hoffman was on Leno last night talking about that ironically. DeNiro doesn't like interviews but when the interview is over and he's with friends, or say on a set, he talks normally. He just doesn't like interviews... i wouldn't have any doubt he could easily get out what he wanted the actors to do
 
It's true about DeNiro and interviews...I remember watching him mumble and muddle his way through an appearance on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' and was kind of startled how poor an interview he was. Still love him as an actor, though.
 
Sad Max said:
Been looking forward to this film since first hearing about it, and wow...was I ever disappointed. Yes, it's well-done technically, yes, there are individual performances and parts of performances that are very, very good...but overall it's a truncated-feeling disjointed mess that in the end doesn't appear to actually be about anything, in particular. Which is kind of surprising, considering the talent that's involved.

Maybe by the closing credits, I was supposed to be left with the sense that, well, no one is honest and nothing is what it appears to be and in the end, there's no one you can trust...but for me that sense was created by poor storytelling, when I would have hoped that it could be created through *good* storytelling.

*sigh*

I'll just have to keep up hope that '300' will be better.
Click to expand...

What was the disappointment? Haven't followed but is this a "based on true story" or fictionalized representation?
 
its based on the true coming of the CIA with names changed. the problem was for me, that it brought in characters and such without really explaining what all they do and such... i honestly admit that i have no clue why Damon was working with the Russians... it wasn't explained very well (if at all...) anyone able to enlighten me? i know what really happened during those years (sort of) but i just didnt get that part of the movie....
 
it looked good based on the trailer and the actors but for some reason i felt like this movie would be a snoozefest.
 
Duct Tape Films said:
What was the disappointment? Haven't followed but is this a "based on true story" or fictionalized representation?
Click to expand...
It's a fictionalized telling of the early origins of the CIA (OSS, through the Bay of Pigs debacle) from the POV of an insider-since-Skull-and-Bones at Yale.

Yeah, it's kind of a snoozefest. A really, really well-executed snoozefest.

From the publicly available body of literature on the CIA's history and personalities and projects, I somehow expected that 'Sheperd' would present a more cogent story than it seemed to me, it did.
 
friend of mine seen a cut of 300... he said if you like over stylization you love it... he said it wasnt his cup of tea though.
 
I saw this movie last weekend.


I think its the kind of film that needs to be watched more than 2 times to fully understand.

Its very hard to comprehend..
 
:shocked: :shocked:

7 hours to fully understand the movie? And I was afraid of 2:40:00.

Ikes.


-GageFX
 
I hate applying good/bad to something that's at least well-done, technically, but...yeah, anyone with $$$ can hire technical proficiency. What's left, is a bad film.

Seeing it twice won't make it any less muddled and unclear.
 
I think...

I think...

Tell me if you guys agree, but it felt like a long, drawn out, boring, WASPy version of the Godfather. Oh and minus Francis Ford directing (although he was an executive producer.) It was not interesting, and the plot was about as coherent as the guy strung out on LSD. It had it's moments. Many scenes were exciting/cool....but well made scenes don't make a good movie.

-Michael
 
I've never seen a film go so far out of its way to be unexciting. How do you make a film about this topic boring? Nicely shot, I'll give it that, but dull, dull, dull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top