Well, let's get the weaknesses of this film out of the way first. Matt Damon (playing the lead role of Wilson), while likely cast for his ability to bring a silent, brooding, inscrutable intensity to his roles (which this lead role requires), is not really a good fit--too boyish in his looks, not enough gravitas to be playing someone as powerful as a CIA head guy, even one in his early years. I just didn't buy him in this role at initial viewing, though it had nothing to do with his acting abilities. And in fact, once this initial impression is gotten over, one recognizes that Mr. Damon actually delivers a very solid, nuanced performance; and his boyish looks actually become an asset whose strength lies in a sense that his character is, actually, a 'puer aeternis'--a perpetual boy who never learned what it means to be a true man in the sense that fatherhood would require. Next, Angelina Jolie was grossly miscast as the lonely, bitter, betrayed housewife--though Ms. Jolie manages. I believe these casting miscues distracted from the film's forward motion, and so cost the film greatly I think, with much of the viewing public.

But on to the strengths. I must strenously disagree with the Amazon editorial review of Jae Ha Kim, who gets it backward: While elements of casting were weak, the plot/theme was brilliantly played out, with a perfectly paced 2 hours and thirty minutes (roughly). De Niro's decision to use flashback sequences to tell this story required this kind of extended time frame, as they are less direct from a plot-telling standpoint; and the 'flashbacks' device very usefully allowed the audience to focus on how Wilson has arrived at his present position, plot-wise and thematically; the flashbacks also created tension and suspense, as this film is very much a 'whodunit.' The cinematography was also meticulous, complementing the director's attention to plot detail, which added (along with the flashbacks) to an effect of seeing the unfolding of events through Wilson's very meticulous eyes.

And beyond the plot development, we have what makes this film excellent, and highly underrated: The themes of 'loyalty' and 'fatherhood' set against a backdrop of National Security. The 'loyalty' theme involves the question, "which loyalty is most important: To country, to family, to fraternity (i.e., secret society running things), or to self?" The 'fatherhood' theme involves the exploration of Wilson's own failures as a father to his son, which are instigated psychologically by his own father's failure to BE a father to him (Wilson's father takes his own life when Wilson is a boy); it also involves Wilson's becoming, in a sort of twist, a 'father to his country' in becoming one of the founding 'fathers' of the CIA. De Niro (Directing) interweaves these two themes brilliantly. And in this, the film's true plot (from a thematic standpoint) is about Wilson's personal journey from fatherless boy to a man who's own attempts at fatherhood are undermined and betrayed by his psychological inability to be a good father to his son. The terrible irony is that the personal qualities that compromise his own fatherhood abilities are the very ones that make him an effective spy. Pointedly, the film askes, "is this a worthy tradeoff?" And using this thematic query as a launching pad, this film is rightly seen as being a critique of not only the CIA, but of the nature of international "spying" in general. Boys are left fatherless through confused notions of "loyalty" to--what? And are the costs worth it?

Ultimately, this film seems to be arguing that a person's inability to honor himself and his family first, both corrupts and aids, ironically, his attempts to honor so-called 'greater' national and international interests; that America herself, in a way, is left fatherless by those running it, because those running it lack the psychological ability to understand what true "fatherhood" (either of a child or a country) means, by virtue of themselves having been left fatherless by their predecessors' own misgebotten sense of loyalty. At the same time, the film poses the question, "what if, in the world of spying and counterintelligence between nations vying for power and survival, self/family values are not an asset, but rather a liability?"

Thus the film's title, "The Good Shepherd," offers both a sarcastic irony, and a lament. An irony, as we watch these fatherless fathers of the nation fail their own families by giving greater loyalty to secret societies and notions of national "duty," and by compromising their own moral high ground through twisted values of leadership. And a lament, for the world we live in is admittedly dog-eat-dog, and would appear to require a set of twisted values on the part of our leaders to ensure our survival.

I couldn't find anything in this film remotely entertaining about this film. Sure some facts are meticulous, but as far as ever caring about any of these characters-nada. It's just slightly better than Clooney's Syriana. At least I was able to make heads or tails what was going on in this one. I just still didn't care. Pass this one by if you can.

This is a very boring movie. Endless dialogue that leads to nowhere. The character development is poor. The plot is confusing and unrealistic. This is painful to watch... 2 hours and 48 minutes of agony on a screen.

This film will find a passionate audience among those looking for an intellectual, adult and intense experience.

De Niro makes a surprising move here into spy territory - not modern Bourne type stuff (despite the presence of Matt Damon) but more like an American John Le Carre type story, in its understated events and emphasis on character. It's a noble endeavor, at times wonderfully shot - however, it is ultimately too flawed to succeed as entertainment.
The story revolves around the creation of the CIA, seen through the eyes of Edward Wilson (a composite of several real life characters). It plays as a character driven story showing what can make a man choose a life of permanent paranoia and secrecy, and the impact that has on his life. In this way the atmosphere around the time of the new Agency's genesis is portrayed rather than a strict blow by blow account of how it came to be. A superb and committed cast have been gathered, (including a blink and you'll miss it cameo from Joe Pesci), and there is a clear feeling of the proceedings oozing talent, from art direction and photography, through to actors and music.
However, there is something about the pacing that is not quite right - at 160 minutes, we should have some significant moments of drama to drive our interest on, but somehow we are left with a spy story of non-people and non-events... a spy movie without suspense. There's an interesting enough story arc for our main character, and the audience is asked to be intelligent enough to fill in some gaps - but the padding has turned what could have been an atmospheric and informative movie into something bloated and dull. This is no epic or definitive account.
Regular readers of mine will know I am no huge fan of rapid fire MTV style editing a la `Armageddon' and its ilk - but a movie still has to have some drive and entertainment value. That's missing here, despite the core having some very interesting things to say about the disease of loneliness and what it does to a man. Sad to say, no endorsement from me on this one, even though it has moments that really make me want to like it.