The Good Shepherd (spoilers if you haven't seen it)

[Saga]

Anyone else see this? Just watched it last night, was a fucking amazing film but a bit tough to follow, only because they jumped around with the timeline constantly. Two questions I just can't answer for the life of me though:

1) The significance of the dollar bill at the beginning. I'm pretty sure I understand that Matt Damon giving Ulysses' assistant the dollar bill to buy the souvenir was cue to kill his son's to-be-bride, but in the very beginning when that woman sends the child to ask for change and Matt gets the dollar bill...did that take place BEFORE he meets Ulysses in the museum? Like, on the way TO the museum? That would make sense, but my brother told me it took place afterward. Also, anyone remember the word that correlated with the serial number? Started with a "C," but I don't know how that ties into anything.

2) Who took the photos of Matt Damon and his deaf lover? The British guy turned Soviet? What did he stand to gain by giving those pictures to Damon's wife?

[MisterBob]

I heard it was really shitty.

[Eaglestrike]

I heard it was really shitty.

It was. It didn't have much of a plot, in that there wasn't much of a climax.

The whole "climax" part of the movie was completely played down by Matt Damon as something that wasn't that important, since you never got to hear his thoughts or him talk to others about it you don't really know how hard it was for him.

Angelina Jolie's character was HORRIBLE. ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. The only inconsistancies were directly from her character and were REALLY BAD.

Overall, the film was fairly well made, good cast, but it was too "artsy".

[archibaldcrane]

It doesn't have much of a plot, doesn't have a goal-oriented protagonist, doesn't have much conflict at all.

Other than that it was decent.

But when you take basically every significant element of screenwriting storytelling away, you end up with an episodic, meandering, and ultimately inconsequential film. It's basically about a guy who decides to accept an offer to help the U.S. against the Nazis in intelligence because he wants to get away from a rushed marriage with a woman he barely knows because he knocked her up. And then some stuff happens. Seriously.

[Eaglestrike]

More importantly, she raped him and got pregnant. Then she went fucking emo cause he doesn't love her because he had to get married to her instead of the woman he really wanted to marry.

[Ksandra]

I just got home from watching this movie.

I liked it a lot, would have been interesting though if they played more on how Angleton (the guy Wilson was based on), I guess was hugely paranoid, and was constantly looking for a mole that didn't exist. Or at least that's what I read. XD

I really really feel bad for the girl he loved though. ;; Wish he would have at least explained things to her.

[archibaldcrane]

More importantly, she raped him and got pregnant.

Epic.

[Btight]

More importantly, she raped him and got pregnant. Then she went fucking emo cause he doesn't love her because he had to get married to her instead of the woman he really wanted to marry.

Spot on. Along with the rest of the descriptions you guys gave about the weak plot.

[Varg]

I've never sat through a more boring 'spy' movie than this atrocity. The only minor joy I received from this three hours of existence that I will never get back was the relief of seeing the son's bride take a nose dive out of the plane, thus ensuring that the movie would not continue for another hour, just to follow another boring and utterly inconsequential generation of the character's family.

I also particularly enjoyed how the fake Russian defector was given full trust after barely any interrogation while the second one was shoveled full of LSD, beaten, and left naked to jump out of the window. After that entire spiel about trust, yada yada yada, I'm supposed to willingly believe that this is the way the character would act? I also kept waiting for Matt Damon's character to tell Angelina Jolie that 'Yes dear, our boys club does come before God, just like it did the last three times Robert DeNiro had you say this exact same line this past two hours.'

Big waste of time that ranks right up there with Blair Witch Project as worse movie I subjected myself to seeing in the theater.

[Saga]

Jesus Christ, harsh critics. >_> Alright well, I still stand by what I said about the movie - obviously there's shit that could've been done better, but overall I enjoyed piecing together the story as it went along. I think people were looking for explanation where there really shouldn't have been any, or if there had been explanation, it would trivialize what it was trying to explain.

I agree though with one poster who said Matt Damon should have provided us with more insight to his thought - something I just realized was missing from this film was a narrator. Maybe some kind of narration a la Rounders would have been nice, to kind of get more insight on one perspective.

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe some kind of narration a la Rounders would have been nice

Matt Damon looks at his cards. He has an 8 of spades and a king of hearts.

NARRATOR: I had an 8 of spades and a king of hearts.


I'll pass on Rounders-style narration.

[Saga]

Maybe some kind of narration a la Rounders would have been nice

Matt Damon looks at his cards. He has an 8 of spades and a king of hearts.

NARRATOR: I had an 8 of spades and a king of hearts.


I'll pass on Rounders-style narration.

Smart ass. >_> I'm not saying that exact format of narration, just some sort of narration that gives insight to a character's thoughts. I used Rounders as an example because there were moments, like at the very end, where his voice over was more insightful than the obvious "my flush was no good against Teddy's boat" moments.

[Noobta]

To the OP, if it hasn't been said, the serial code was "Cardinal".

[Stilgar]

lol. You guys are like a couple of grandparents coming out of Borat.... this movie was way over your heads.

It was an amazing movie. If you want some real discussion, check out IMDB or something, this board is like the peanut gallery, full of people wanting cheap Bond-esque 'spy' thrills and not having a clue when something like real espionage bites them on the nose.

[archibaldcrane]

lol. You guys are like a couple of grandparents coming out of Borat.... this movie was way over your heads.

It was an amazing movie. If you want some real discussion, check out IMDB or something, this board is like the peanut gallery, full of people wanting cheap Bond-esque 'spy' thrills and not having a clue when something like real espionage bites them on the nose.

You can understand everything that happens in this movie, and still find it uninteresting. Rules to telling a good story still apply.

[Correction]

I did enjoy the movie but I certainly don't really like it when a movie gives me a thoroughly unsympathetic main character. Rather than a story about how an otherwise brilliant and promising mind got seduced into a shadowy world of paranoia and stonefaced violence we get a character who makes decisions seemingly purely on how dispassionately he can react to the consequences each and every one of them. He never shows pleasure or displeasure except in the very weakest of circumstances 'oh you don't love your wife orly?' Matt Damon is capable of showing better, subtler emotion than this (hi2u The Departed) and yet the way he's being directed here you might as well have put a mannequin in there.

I'm torn on this movie, I do love the juicy stories about how the CIA was formed and how the Cold War was being fought, and I especially liked the guys playing the russians and John Turturro (edit: and oh yeah Michael Gambon is a God among actors), but at the end of the film I really didn't give a shit who lived and who died. Not the best feeling to have walking away from a movie.

[Varg]

lol. You guys are like a couple of grandparents coming out of Borat.... this movie was way over your heads.

It was an amazing movie. If you want some real discussion, check out IMDB or something, this board is like the peanut gallery, full of people wanting cheap Bond-esque 'spy' thrills and not having a clue when something like real espionage bites them on the nose.

I, for one, did not expect nor desire cheap Bond thrills - I couldn't tell you the last Bond movie I thought was anything more than a throwaway - even though I liked Casino Royale overall - it didn't feel much like a Bond film (if I wanted a 30 minute lesson in poker, I'd watch the travel channel or ESPN2) rather what I expected from this movie, and from any decent spy movie, is a plot that involves suspense and intrigue.

The bride-to-be falling from the plane like a dead fish flopping about on land was an excellent way to sum up the entirety of this 'movie' - helplessly floundering about hoping to survive. Even the moments that seemed ripe for suspense were treated bluntly (shooting the translator who was faking deafness) or incoherently like, as mentioned before, the situation with the Russian defector. This was one of the most jolting experiences. It was out of character and out of the realm of the movie's reality. Despite this glaring absurdity, I would have forgiven it IF the conclusion of the situation yielded even a modicum of excitement and no, his playing of the violin, though pretty, was also yawn inducing.

Real espionage may not involve anything romantic, thrilling or suspenseful - I can accept that. If this movie is 'real espionage' then obviously espionage is not as interesting as people, including myself, think it would be, BUT a movie's purpose is to enthrall the audience and make something interesting even if out of nothing. If I wanted the boring truth about a subject - I'd tune in to the History channel for espionage week.....but only after I brush up on my poker skills to watch Casino Royale

[Foustian]

I'm gonna have to agree about the interrogation scene. I just sat there thinking "Why would you not interrogate the first guy? Why are you beating the hell out of the second guy and just inherently trusting the one who was actually lying?".