Seriously, the movie is mediocre...

Rating: 4/10 (2 January 2010)

I think the movie didn't tell a story more than what we could get from reading its screenplay, which means the editing, the cinematography, the acting and the direction are lousy, if not meaningless...
The lines were poorly written, and some of which were so plain that they could sound so similar to a speech made by Japan's Emporer...I don't know why Morgan Freeman was nominated as the best actor (drama) for Gloden Globes, but I surely know he won't get it...His performance loses what we expected to see in his past movies, especially that sense of humor. He tried to make his role a complete and true one, but this endeavor possibly gives him too little room to exert his acting skills and instead makes him talk, stand and sit like a puppet...
Clint Eastwood, though always somewhat politically correct, failed to make an "artistically enjoyable" movie this time. He should have added more personal understanding or critical argument in the movie, but he chose to make it something that you can read from a textbook. Why should people go to buy a ticket to read a textbook? People expect to see more of the famous figure in a movie, to know more than being told...It is the director's responsibility to achieve the goals, but Eastwood apparently forgot this...
Matt Damon is good for his performance, generally...I mean at least no fault could be found. But also, when everything turned to be so plain in the movie, for instance the editing, the cinematography and the lines, an actor's performance really didn't matter so much...
I truly doubt, when judged on Oscar level, that this movie could get any nomination...even including the best actor...