A movie filled to the brim with potential excitement and intrigue but ultimately a disaster.

Rating: 2/10 (13 April 2007)

I was so excited to see this movie. The trailer looked amazing, it was Joe Pesci's first movie in eight years, it was Damon and Baldwin back again after The Departed, Angelina Jolie, John Turturro, Michael Gambon, and last but not least, Rober DeNiro; it seemed to have it all. So why did it end up being one of the most boring and disappointing movies I've seen in a long time? Well, to put it simply, this is a great action movie without the action. There are no tense scenes that get your heart racing, no spying, and really no reason to make you care about what's going on or even to like the characters.
While Matt Damon does well for a near three-hour long movie, the constant seriousness in him becomes irritating about halfway through the film which is once you realize that this is how the rest of the flick is going to be. It's not Matt Damon's fault; this is just a lousy character. It feels like Matt Damon is missing a huge part of what makes him Matt Damon. Maybe it's energy, because this is a movie without a pulse. Even the single argument Jolie and Damon have is tame. On the topic of Angelina Jolie, the same thing goes for her. Where is she? Where is all the energy and screen presence that makes Angelina Jolie such a great actress? As for the other actors like Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, they are also disappointing. The only thing I really remember about DeNiro being on screen is him complaining about how messed up his feet are. That's it. A forgettable DeNiro performance is rare, but this may be the most forgettable of his career. But it's not as if he's on for much time. He appears in this movie for five minutes tops, another disappointment. And Joe Pesci's first movie in eight years! Eight years we haven't seen him on screen! So I was obviously disappointed when his entire three minutes of screen time were over.
But in the movie's defense, the acting is not bad, and it is really the only redeeming quality of The Good Shepherd (hence the "2" rating). Matt Damon, although not best actor Oscar worthy, still manages to carry this movie through as best he can. Sadly, it's not enough. Nor are all the efforts of the remaining cast members. The editing is too horrible, the movie is too long, and the dialogue is too wordy and dull. The characters often beat around the bush instead of getting to the point.
As for the events that occur in this movie, we are not given any reason to care for any of them. Damon's son falls in love with some woman who is no friend to the American government. So what? We don't know who she is and she hurriedly gets thrown off an airplane before we get to know who she is (but by the time that happens you just want the movie to end). We are not given any reason to care about anything because the story involving Matt Damon's son and that woman, which begins, appears in the middle, and ends the movie, feels like a pointless filler that should have been edited out, just like a huge chunk of this snoozer should have been.
In closing, The Good Shepherd is one of those movies that seems to get worse the more you think about it. Is it among the top five worst movies I've ever seen? No, as the acting and first forty-five minutes or so save it from that horrible fate. Top 10 worst ever? Maybe. Top 15? Definitely. Avoid this at all costs.