Great story, good acting, poor film

Rating: 5/10 (25 December 2006)

As a story, this was written well and would've been quite engaging if it was not such a poorly made film. I apologize, but unlike everyone else, just because there has been such a lack of good films lately, people are willing to jump on the bandwagon of any movie that doesn't completely suck. And that is what I feel is happening with this movie (and the Departed, which had great acting, superior direction, but a weak script).
This movie is very much unnecessarily drawn out. While some films warrant the long running times, this film does not. It almost feels as if to make it seem like an intelligent, grand-scale film, there was a running time goal. The same story could've been told in a 2 hour film much more engagingly. Long drawn out moments in which there is supposed to be a lot of subtext just seemed dry, and the obvious attempt for a human element during those scenes was simply not felt. At no point did I feel I could sympathize at all with the main character for his "sacrifices".
So in summary, this movie feels more like a history book acted out rather than an emotionally involving story. And I hate to say it, because while I like Matt Damon, his performance was nothing short of mediocre. I do not blame him, but the script. There wasn't much range in his character to show any acting prowess, this role could've been performed by any half-decent struggling acting student. So I sincerely hope he is not nominated for best actor (even though he will probably be).