Simply put...

Simply put...

The year's best film!

Robert De Niro's compelling, erudite exploration of the birth of the Central Intelligence Agency is a film of endless fascination. Matt Damon is brilliant, conveying his character's inner nature without sacrificing the stone-cold stoicism we expect from a veteran spy of the Cold War era. His is, without a doubt, the best performance in a film this year. The supporting cast is across-the-board terrific, with the (yes, sentimental) highlight being a sizzling cameo by Joe Pesci.

De Niro outdoes himself behind the camera, especially in regards to capturing the small details which are oh-so important in the world of espionage. And Eric Roth further cements himself as a master screenwriter, as if Forrest Gump, The Insider, and Munich weren't proof enough.

I honestly can't recommend this film enough and can't wait to see it again. It's an incredible, incredible accomplishment all involved should be extremely proud of.

A+.

Best film of the year? Pfft. Blood Diamond is a hell of a lot better than this.

It's interesting how some people throw out "the year's best film" willynillily. Also, I saw the runtime was 160 minutes???? Holy cow. I was looking forward to seeing it and my dad wants to see it too but this runtime sounds a bit excessive.

I did want to see this film, honestly, but yesterday, I was having second thoughts and my dad forced me to go. In the end, he was only up for about half the film (and not because he was tired), the guy sitting down the row snored like there was no tomorrow, and I glanced at the time on my cell phone about 385 times. NO LIE.

Some people = 99.9% of critics and many movie fans as well. Most everyone does a top ten list and one film, every year, is #1.

And the long running time is, IMO, necessary. It's the first three decades of the Central Intelligence Agency, a very long story. I can understand being nervous when a giant ape movie is three hours long, but the length is entirely justified here.

P.S.: Joe, Blood Diamond is a close runner-up. It is a brilliant film as well. Very moving.

I did end up doing double duty today seeing Good Shepherd and Blood Diamond. The Good Shepherd turned out to be quite interesting although very meticulous and it had a split story going on at the same time with a breach of intelligence taking place in 1961 and Damon's story being told throughout the course of the film. The length of time turned out to be a small issue although I still think it could have been cut down further. I agree with a critic who brought up that the makeup dept did a poor job of aging Damon because he was one of the most youthful old person you'd ever see in the movies. Overall, I enjoyed the film and thought the acting and stories were fine.

Fantastic movie

A+

Every part flowed well. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. Well done Damon and De Niro.

This was a fantastic movie. Going in I was a little put off because of the running time, but it did not seem as long as it actually was. De Niro made one compelling movie.

A-

I'm guessing you were the D Zing?

Yes.

I'm not surprised to see the great reception here, though.

I was considering seeing this, but I have encountered at least eight people who have told me how dull they found it.

I am very iffy.

You should give it a chance. It's great.

Did you enjoy Munich and/or Syriana? Those are similar films.

I'm still vastly anticipating this. I'm one of the few people who thought this looked great from the start, the trailer was one of my favorite of the year, and these reactions only up my anticipation.

Libs, I don't think we agree on anything when it comes to film, but those eight people are right.

Yeah reviews have been better then I expected but WOM is prett nasty from what I've heard. I think I'll rent it on DVD, where I can take a stretch break or two in between.

The first half of the film is quite slow and rather boring. There is no other way to say it. But since the film is about espionage, covert politics and the birth of the CIA, it is impossible to wtay boring for the entire film. The biggest problem i had with the film is that it is so esoteric, so in depth, that it does go over your, well, I won't speak for anyone else, but for me, it went over my head a bit, and in several scenes as well. Being in bed with the Russians, the spies from Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, much of that was confusing. But the characters are interesting and thoroughly well written but you really need to pay attention to understand it all. I might see it again to try and understand it better. It is a good film, and i honestly thought for a minute that Francis Coppola was behind the camera.

7.5/10

I liked it, and the running time didnt really hurt me at all, I thought maybe it was two hours after I left, and to my suprise it was closer to three.

I agree that Damon had the worst makeup job I ever saw. That was my first comment just that. It jumped from 1961 to 1939 and Damon looks exactly the same. But most characters were like that as well.

The cast was good, and while the film was interesting, I would have rathered it was a film about the CIA, or a film about being a neglected father and husband with some CIA interludes. They meld a very awkward film in the end with a great cast and a lot of great moments. A final edit could have made this great, but for De Niro I think the film is a very good first effort by him.

The cast was great to watch and I wasn't bored throughout most of it, I just feel with the amount of talent involved, its a missed opportunity at a masterpiece. B+/A-

zzz...C

Well im going to watch this tomorrow. I think I'll like it (bit of a 20th Century history and spy genre buff) - but im worried about all these "zzzz" remarks aswell as the running time.

Despite it's long running time I wasn't bored for a second. The film was sometimes a bit confusing but not as much as I thought it would be. Damon gives one of his best performances ever and Jolie wasn't bad either (tough i wished she would have been more in the movie). B+

It is very long, and it definitely feels it, but I didn't feel like this was a terrible movie. It's just too ambitious. The cast is great and there are really no weak links performance-wise - Damon is the weakest, as he really doesn't do anything but stay quiet and stone-faced - and there are some interesting scenes, but everything is so stretched out that the film is as long as possible. The layered and intriguing screenplay would be a lot better if it didn't take half an hour to tell a single important plot point. It's very similar to Syriana, in that it takes the longest possible route to tell a story, perhaps intending to appeal to adults but really just turning off everyone. Also, because it tries to tell the entire story of the CIA, there's no sense of a singular story or a climax. The direction is mostly solid, but the film is entirely too dull and dreary to really be that appealing. It's well-acted and well-written, but terribly paced.

Zingy's right...zzzz

It had incredible acting though, maybe the best of the year in realism wise.

B-/B