The Good Shepherd

[ThePresence]

Damn, that movie looks like it's gonna be a good one.

 

[EvilYoda]

Yeah, I think so too...I've just been wondering why Leo D. dropped "The Good Shepherd" for "The Blood Diamond"...must be because the latter features him while the former has a magnificent cast.

 

[Mo0o]

THe movie doesn't seem to have a very coherent plot

 

[Dissipate]

Looks like more thinly disguised propaganda for the gubmint and the CIA.

 

[EvilYoda]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Looks like more thinly disguised propaganda for the gubmint and the CIA.

Are you sure you watched the same trailer as I did? It's not exactly painting a pretty picture about his character and what he does...don't see how that would be propaganda.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: EvilYoda

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Looks like more thinly disguised propaganda for the gubmint and the CIA.

Are you sure you watched the same trailer as I did? It's not exactly painting a pretty picture about his character and what he does...don't see how that would be propaganda.

I saw the trailer a couple of times. I guess we will see if it is propaganda or not.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Looks like more thinly disguised propaganda for the gubmint and the CIA.

Because we all know how much Hollywood loves the government and the CIA.
So much so that they are putting out Government and CIA propoganda films.
Yeah, okay.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I saw TGS last night. Not bad, not stellar. I'd say 3/5 stars.

 

[loup garou]

It looks interesting, I've heard it is long and dry though.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: loup garou
It looks interesting, I've heard it is long and dry though.

yeah...I went in expecting more spying and killing.

 

[KK]

Wasn't much substance to the movie. Not worth going to see, wait til dvd.

 

[SirChadwick]

I didn't care for it... and it's tough to follow. It's a sleeper unless you're really into the whole CIA thing.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

DeNiro's strength is not in the editing room for sure. It was very slow moving... it's never a good sign when I look at my watch during a movie.

Anyways, it was an alright movie. Nothing to write home about.

Oh, and I really wish they had done more with the makeup. I mean, at first glance, you can't tell if it's supposed to be the ~20 year old Matt Damon, or the ~40 year old one.

 

[apex32]

Looks really good, I'm going to go see it really soon.

 

[her209]

Better or worse than the Borne Identity?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: her209
Better or worse than the Borne Identity?

worse

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
DeNiro's strength is not in the editing room for sure. It was very slow moving... it's never a good sign when I look at my watch during a movie.

Anyways, it was an alright movie. Nothing to write home about.

Oh, and I really wish they had done more with the makeup. I mean, at first glance, you can't tell if it's supposed to be the ~20 year old Matt Damon, or the ~40 year old one.

Agreed on all counts. Damon's identical appearance at age 19 and age 40 made it kind of confusing.

I am generally annoyed with the length of movies nowadays. In the same weekend I saw Casino Royale and TSG, both of which could have been significantly improved by chopping out at least 20 minutes. Over the last few years I've seen a ton of >2.5-hour movies that would have been worlds better if shortened. Peter Jackson, in particular, is a chronic offender in that respect, and each of the LOTR movies and King Kong were far far too long IMO.

 

[fallenangel99]

Damn, I fell asleep throughout some parts of the movie. MOST Of the people in the movie looked alike to me!!! I wasn't sure who was bad, who was good. Heck, if it wasn't for Damon's glasses, I would be confused about his part too!!

Jolie of course was not mistakable

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: her209
Better or worse than the Borne Identity?

Hard to say. If you go in wanting a "Bourne Identity" type of movie, you will be disappointed. Very little action, not a lot of the typical "spy movie" stuff. It's really more a drama about the intelligence community.

On a completely objective level, I enjoyed the Bourne Identity more. It had proper pacing, and for an action movie, it had a good plot, and was well played by Damon. This one moved a lot slower, even by drama standards. It was well acted by the big-name cast they put together, but the story I thought was lacking, and it has a bloated running time.

 

[Platypus]

It was about an hour too long and had some really cheesy cliches but overall it was pretty decent with some stellar acting.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I saw this movie last week. My wife wanted to walk out. I agree with her, the movie was long and dry....very little actually happens through it. The last of the movie, ties up some things, but at that point, I didn't really care.

You might want to read your history books a little and understand the Cuban Missle Crisis before watching it.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: Platypus
It was about an hour too long and had some really cheesy cliches but overall it was pretty decent with some stellar acting.

Good assessment. I also vote that it was about an hour too long. Worst part was that 45 minutes of the movie had sound problems and a lot of the dialogue was hard to hear.....thus they gave us a ticket good for a future flick....I doubt we'll be using it to watch that one again.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Peter Jackson, in particular, is a chronic offender in that respect, and each of the LOTR movies and King Kong were far far too long IMO.

I'll give you King Kong for sure. That was a travesty.

However, for LOTR, I gave him license to be heavy handed. I was never in to the books, and I didnt even see fellowship in the theater. I was convinced to watch it on video and I was hooked. I will admit that the movies are long, and there are some isolated scenes that are just too much... but in general I was "sucked in" by all 3 installments, and there isn't much that I would chop out of any of them. (OK, I'll give you the end of the third one, that was rediculous).

Anyways, back to the topic.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage

Originally posted by: DonVito
Peter Jackson, in particular, is a chronic offender in that respect, and each of the LOTR movies and King Kong were far far too long IMO.

I'll give you King Kong for sure. That was a travesty.

However, for LOTR, I gave him license to be heavy handed. I was never in to the books, and I didnt even see fellowship in the theater. I was convinced to watch it on video and I was hooked. I will admit that the movies are long, and there are some isolated scenes that are just too much... but in general I was "sucked in" by all 3 installments, and there isn't much that I would chop out of any of them. (OK, I'll give you the end of the third one, that was rediculous).

Anyways, back to the topic.

Also, LOTR is following the book, not just an isolated screenplay. You have to get in all the important parts of the book.

 

[snoopdoug1]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage
DeNiro's strength is not in the editing room for sure. It was very slow moving... it's never a good sign when I look at my watch during a movie.

Anyways, it was an alright movie. Nothing to write home about.

Oh, and I really wish they had done more with the makeup. I mean, at first glance, you can't tell if it's supposed to be the ~20 year old Matt Damon, or the ~40 year old one.

I agree...