The Good Shepherd (2006) - Movie Review

I wonder if filmmakers harbor the misguided notion that the longer their film runs, the more epic gravitas it lends their oeuvre. Phooey. Judicious editing could have greatly benefited "The Good Shepherd", the latest film directed by Robert DeNiro. At a sphincter challenging 160 minutes this is not the only film's drawback.

Starting with the botched Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, the film shuttles back and forth between then and the early 1930s. The protagonist, CIA agent Edward Wilson tries to figure why his operation went horribly awry, and as he investigates the clues to a possible "stranger in his house", the film flashes back to Edward's personal history and his budding career at the CIA.

Matt Damon gives Edward Wilson an impossibly opaque facade. He imbues the character with a hard edged, unemotional quality that's meant to signify a patriotic and unbending sense of duty that supersedes the family and even self. In flashbacks, we see glimpses into the events that shaped the kind of man he becomes. As far back as a boy, he bears the impossible burden of covering up his father's suicide. Later, he leaves the only girl he ever loved to do the responsible thing and marry a woman he impregnates at a Skull and Bones Party.

The cast is first rate. Don't let anyone ever tell you DeNiro doesn't know how to rally talent. Trouble is there are too many characters to keep track. Along with his Russian contacts, there's John Turturro as Edward's aid, Ray Brocco, and Alec Baldwin as Ray Murach, Edward's FBI liaison. Joe Pesci, Billy Crudup, Timothy Hutton, William Hurt and even DeNiro himself make cameo walk-ons.

Angelina Jolie is oddly miscast as Margaret/Clover Russell, the tossed-aside wife Edward marries out of responsibility. Jolie naturally exudes a sexual charm that the role doesn't call for. The female roles are skimpy at best, and it accurately reflects the backseat women took in this boys' club era. As such, Jolie gets a few digs in, but for most of the film, she's rendered completely anachronistic. I just don't understand her decision to assume such a thankless part when an unknown could have fared better.

Along with themes of duty and trust, the film doubles as an espionage thriller. Photographed in neutral, somber tones the film evokes an ascetic quality that perfectly complements its main character as well as the genre it represents. However, some of the subplots are unnecessary, heavy handed and confusing as with Michael Gambon's character, Dr. Fredericks. It detracts from the story as a whole and the leaden dialogue sometimes delivered in a monotone codespeak, further swamps the pace.

Duty and sacrifice is all Edward knows and the audience is kept at arm's length by this fact alone. As the film's central character, we're meant to identify with Edward's robotic demeanor, but all it does is build a wall, precluding any emotional connection with the happenings onscreen. ***SPOILER ALERT - SKIP THIS PART***Even when forced to orchestrate the assassination of his son's fiance', it's the son that's completely destroyed, but Edward keeps on ticking.**END SPOILER ALERT*** At the epicenter of all his powerful decisions, Edward always remains detached and devoid of any psychological complexity. It's the people around him who suffer.

Only when he reconnects with his true love Laura (Tammy Blanchard), do we catch a glimpse into the cipher. It's too little too late. We're supposed to understand and realize the sacrifices Edward willingly makes to ensure the basic freedoms the rest of American society enjoys and takes for granted. But by not revealing the human beneath Edward - and I fault DeNiro for this, not Damon - all we really get to see is a man making a deal with the devil. So what? It happens every day.