A good story poorly told

Rating: 4/10 (30 May 2012)

I've always had a personal interest in what type of person gives up their lives for patriotism; what does it take to give up everything you have and fight a great (albeit Cold) War? In the 50's and 60's, when the US and USSR were the biggest guys on the block and arguing over world domination, each had intelligence and counter-intelligence types looking for information and sowing dis-information. This is their story. It's long, it's sometimes very boring, but it is compelling.
Matt Damon becomes he head of CIA counter intelligence, and consumed with discovery of a mole in the organization. A loner, he is picked for Skull & Bones at Yale, has a quick affair with the sister of another Bonesman, resulting in a loveless "shotgun" marriage and an estranged family as Damon's work of saving the world occupies his every thought and action. Individuals and countries become pawns in a battle between Damon's "Mother," and his agents, and Oleg Shtefanko's "Ulysses," and his plots and plans and moles. In the end, the biggest leaks of CIA information turn out to be a defector (planted to learn and report) and Damon's own son (who falls for a "honey pot" in Africa). Damon gives up any possibility of a relationship with his son when he silently condones the murder of his son's fiancé.
What detracts from the film is the plodding detail. Much of this detail is necessary to the eventual tragedy of Damon's career dedication to his country, but also told in a style that has to make one wonder if this detail is important. Any movie you have to watch two or three times just to understand the plot should be rethought.
Matt Damon is great early in the film as a man lost in the mire of his father's suicide, trapped in a loveless marriage in a day when divorce was taboo, and taken in by a gem of a defector truly too good to be true. But later, when his hunt for the mole is all-consuming, seemed strained and unapologetic. Although he clearly realizes what he has given up, and the mistakes that he's made, it's just shrugged off as part of the game.
Angelina Jolie was, well, Jolie. Her lines are not delivered as an actress playing a part, but a famous actress reading lines. Even her tumultuous coming apart at the realization that she really doesn't know her husband was poorly yelled. And Eddie Redmayne as their love-child? One of the worst casting jobs possible. Rather than a strained family relationship, Redmayne appears to be a "special ed" candidate. And what would a CIA department chief's son be doing traveling Africa at the height of the Cold War without careful briefing and debriefing?
Smaller roles are filled with great talent. John Turturo, as Damon's bodyguard and confidant, steals virtually every scene with his absolute devotion to duty and unflinching belief in his own version of truth. DeNiro appears briefly, and offers a compelling yet in the end unimportant behind the scenes superior. William Hurt, as a flawed patriot and Jolie's father (really, her father?), reveals a class of character unwilling to yield to patriotism in favor of self-gain.
Some tragedies are necessary. Romeo and Juliet died so their families could live in peace. Damon gives up a better (or at least happy) life so the Cold War did not become a real war. But the slow pace, flashback retelling, strange casting, and a largely one-dimensional supporting cast (save for Turturo and Tammy Blanchard as Damon's early love interest) made for a tedious experience. I've seen the movie a half dozen times now, each time picking up a little more detail and understanding, but each time becoming less patient with Jolie's and Redmayne's characters and performance. I want to like this movie a lot more, but just can't.