• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Good Shepherd

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Also, LOTR is following the book, not just an isolated screenplay. You have to get in all the important parts of the book.
Click to expand...

The problem, though, is that the plots themselves are very simple. I loved the books as a kid but found the movies really ponderous. Neither Tolkien nor Jackson really tries to bring life to the characters, and you could easily write an accurate outline of each of the books on a single piece of notebook paper.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


Yeah...what is with movies getting longer and longer these days? What happened to tight editing and well-written stories? Nowadays, it seems as though a movie plot can drag on with tons of unconnected characters, plot points that go nowhere, and holes bigger than the one at the center of our galaxy...as long as it's at least 3 hours long.

Hence, the Good Shepard. Not worth the $10. Rent it if you must.
 
Worst movie I have ever seen by far. Too long, dry, confusing and bad acting. The trailer is very misleading. I only wish I could have those 3 hours of my life back.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Also, LOTR is following the book, not just an isolated screenplay. You have to get in all the important parts of the book.
Click to expand...

The problem, though, is that the plots themselves are very simple. I loved the books as a kid but found the movies really ponderous. Neither Tolkien nor Jackson really tries to bring life to the characters, and you could easily write an accurate outline of each of the books on a single piece of notebook paper.
Click to expand...


I came into those films in the opposite way. Never read the books as a kid, begrudgingly suffered the first flick in the theater, painfully forced to watch the extended version on DVD. Then I saw the 2 Towers...and was hooked. I eventually read the books, but they're trite. (maybe if I were 7 or 9 when I read them...as anyone should be, then I would have enjoyed them...) I felt that the flims handled the story much better than Tolkein. Characters weren't dry, one-dimensional "types" as they are in the books. The unnessessary parts were left out, and other plots enhanced to make them adaptable to film (the whole Liv Tyler thing).

The films ended up being long...but I never really noticed it after I was hooked. (Although, leaving the theater after the first one....3 hours later...and nothing happened really pissed me off)
 
just saw it:

Questions:
1) Yale professor was actually British intellegence. What was he doing at Yale? And why didnt the FBI know that the British was doing covert ops in America?

2) That Russian defector that worked for Matt Damon:
He was pretending to be the guy Matt met at a church during World War II, right? But he was actually working for that guy? How did Matt know the Ulysses book contained a clue?

Hell, what made matt suspect the russian guy after all those years he worked for him?

3) Why did they kill his future daughter-in-law?
 
I thought it was excellent! They made a great choice in keeping it rather long to include more interesting things in the plot. Definately not your usual 90 minute spy movie with a lame one dimensional plot and a lot of explosions.
 
Originally posted by: JEDI
just saw it:

Questions:
1) Yale professor was actually British intellegence. What was he doing at Yale? And why didnt the FBI know that the British was doing covert ops in America?

2) That Russian defector that worked for Matt Damon:
He was pretending to be the guy Matt met at a church during World War II, right? But he was actually working for that guy? How did Matt know the Ulysses book contained a clue?

Hell, what made matt suspect the russian guy after all those years he worked for him?

3) Why did they kill his future daughter-in-law?
Click to expand...


1) Because British intelligence isn't going to inform the US government about clandestine operations on foreign soil. The US government would never support such an endeavor.

2) I forgot at the moment exactly it was, but there was a clue that definitely gave it away.

3) I believe the Russians had his future daughter-in-law killed because he wouldn't let the Russians black mail him so this was a sure fire way for the Russians to hurt Matt Damon without being tied to it by evidence. Killing a random local girl in the Congo in the eyes of everyone else.
 
Originally posted by: JEDI
just saw it:

Questions:
1) Yale professor was actually British intellegence. What was he doing at Yale? And why didnt the FBI know that the British was doing covert ops in America?

2) That Russian defector that worked for Matt Damon:
He was pretending to be the guy Matt met at a church during World War II, right? But he was actually working for that guy? How did Matt know the Ulysses book contained a clue?

Hell, what made matt suspect the russian guy after all those years he worked for him?

3) Why did they kill his future daughter-in-law?
Click to expand...


1) I believe they knew, I think it was a test of Damon's character to see if he would do what was neccessary. This part was very ambiguous.. I only came to that conclusion based on the conversation they had in Britian after he was told to kill him.

2) The REAL guy came forward remember? They drugged him and he jumped out the window. That was Damon's first clue. The other was that guy he met in Britian at the couch, he then called him and told him that 'his worst nightmare had come true, no friends, no country, etc.' That guy gave the russian guy the book so he knew that guy was shady.

3) She was working against the US/using Damon's son for intel.
 
Originally posted by: DonVitoPeter 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.
Click to expand...

Agreed re: King Kong, but disagree on LOTR. The Ext Ed parts he left out of Fellowship were criminal.

It's not a fair comparison in the first place - the source material doesnt compare, and PJ had to keep the dorkwad fans like me happy by not leaving things out (which he did anyway).

 
Originally posted by: Platypus
Originally posted by: JEDI
just saw it:

Questions:
1) Yale professor was actually British intellegence. What was he doing at Yale? And why didnt the FBI know that the British was doing covert ops in America?

2) That Russian defector that worked for Matt Damon:
He was pretending to be the guy Matt met at a church during World War II, right? But he was actually working for that guy? How did Matt know the Ulysses book contained a clue?

Hell, what made matt suspect the russian guy after all those years he worked for him?

3) Why did they kill his future daughter-in-law?
Click to expand...


1) I believe they knew, I think it was a test of Damon's character to see if he would do what was neccessary. This part was very ambiguous.. I only came to that conclusion based on the conversation they had in Britian after he was told to kill him.

2) The REAL guy came forward remember? They drugged him and he jumped out the window. That was Damon's first clue. The other was that guy he met in Britian at the couch, he then called him and told him that 'his worst nightmare had come true, no friends, no country, etc.' That guy gave the russian guy the book so he knew that guy was shady.

3) She was working against the US/using Damon's son for intel.
Click to expand...

1) I didn't get the idea the FBI knew anything. I assumed that the Brits just didn't bother to inform the FBI that they were doing anything. International coordination is hardly comprehensive these days, let alone prior to WWII.

2) The defector was NOT Ulysses, who was the KGB agent in the church scene and also the one who kept meeting Damon's character several times. The reason Damon looked at the Ulysses book is that it was partially lifted from the table in the set of books, meaning that someone had looked at it recently.

I thought it was a good movie. I will admit that it was somewhat long, but that doesn't tend to bother me as much as most people, apparently. More time for my money. 🙂
 
I saw it last weekend, it was pretty good. It was a little too long though and I felt as though it kind of ended abruptly.
 
This movie was awful, I couldn't watch it. I turned it off after about an hour and had no clue wtf was going on. I also couldn't tell if it was young or old Matt Damon, and I swear the years on the screen were wrong half of the time.

This is one movie I will never have any urge to try and watch again.
 
I watched it in a movie theater when it came out. Even though I was really bored throughout the movie, I started laughing uncontrollably when the pilot / co-pilot got up from his seat and threw that bitch out of the plane infront of everyone else, and then went about his own business like nothing happened, oh man good times. Though people started starring at me it was kind of awkward, oh well 🙂

DarkThinker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top