Comments on: De Niro Desires Good Shepherd Trilogy

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:40:23 +0000

I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. The film although didn’t really have much of a conclusion. You kind of feel that things are just getting started with the CIA, and I for one would love to see more of the CIA being started. So I am for the sequals and I trust Mr. Deniro with directing because so far, he is two for two (A Bronx Tale and The Good Shepherd).

By: hecticstairs

hecticstairs — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:33:35 +0000

this movie sucked lame. if it’s made into a trilogy, there needs to be more action. i didn’t feel the weight or magnitude of the characters and their particular situations and the skull cult could have had so much more mystique instead they just bamboozled through everyone here’s one scene now the next and next and so on

these characters need to be badasses for what they do. and what they do is supposed to be more important than anything. the dual identities these people have should emphasize their silent suffering from coming to terms with their actions stemming from their past, present, and future.

if you fall asleep at a movie, you’re either really tired or the movie is really lame. chances are you’re not an idiot and have spent money on something you will be awake for. with that in mind this movie is awful.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:36:58 +0000

Done right, there could be a sequel or two IMO without completely ruining the first and it might even work. I mean, the CIA has no shortage of interesting history to tap into and so there is plenty of source material to make for some interesting cinema.

On the flip side of the same token, I think it would be a better idea for De Niro to just make those movies without directly linking them to The Good Shepard. Just three separate movies dealing with different periods in the history of the CIA. As Paul said, The Good Shepard was a nicely contained story that really tied up everything with the Matt Damon character pretty well by the end.

As for the pace, I didn’t mind it a bit. As long as a movie remains interesting, I don’t think lots of explosions or quick pacing is required.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:10:32 +0000

I think that the first film is a pretty complete look at Matt Damon’s character, and the film ends pretty late in the guys life, after a tragic event on the order of magnitude befitting a Greek tragedy. I don’t know what can top it, unless it gets into Matrix sized events, and that would just make the original look small in its quiet realism. And frankly, what I liked about the film is that it doesn’t insult your intelligence, it was a movie that didn’t bonk you over you head with its message. Also, I like that De Niro had the courage to make a thoughtful, deep and, yes, slow but nevertheless correctly paced film that demanded you pay attention. I wish more films, and more filmmakers were like that.

But then I really like the old russian version of Solaris. The new Clooney version was too shallow and glitzy. :)

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:10:04 +0000

A Trilogy? He could have made a Trilogy out of the entire movie and just explained things better. I swear, I watched it three times and I still don’t get it. Granted, I’m not that bright to begin with.

By: 790

790 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:22:39 +0000

Yeah Doug, I have this on dvd but I still havnt watched it yet.
Along with about 20 other films. ;-(
I could see how they could do a film franchise on the cia.
Will it be acurate NO, but maybe entertaining.

By: steven

steven — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:20:36 +0000

i thought the movie was ok. it’s something that i can’t fault for not having alot of action because it’s supposed to be a true story, but i was really bored watching this, if i can remember it was 3hrs or so. i wouldn’t be mad if he made another one. i prolly wouldn’t watch it