Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (March 25, 2026)
With a stellar cast, a famous actor moonlighting as director, and serious subject matter, 2006’s The Good Shepherd looked like real Oscar-bait. However, the movie failed to make much of a dent with the public, the critics, or those who choose the awards.
And for good reason, as Shepherd offers a muddled look at the development of the CIA. After the Bay of Pigs debacle, operative Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) gets the job to locate a disloyal entity in the organization, a task that leads to complications in his personal life.
The tale also looks at Edward’s past and both personal and professional developments prior to 1961. This shows how his time in the CIA brought him to the events of 1961 and we also see the impact on his family.
At the very least, I must credit Shepherd as an ambitious film because it aspires to mix the story of the CIA with a personal drama and span these events across a couple of decades. The epic scope means that the movie bites off quite a lot.
So why does the end result seem so flat and uninvolving? Shepherd doesn’t work for a number of reasons.
One comes from the chronological structure. I understand what director Robert De Niro wanted to do as he mixed the investigation into the mole with the tale of Edward’s career, but it doesn’t prove satisfying.
The film doesn’t need an unconventional chronology to tell its story. The jumps in time become more distracting and off-putting than anything else.
It doesn’t help that the tale itself becomes a mess. I can’t decide if Shepherd feels like a 90-minute movie padded to almost three hours or a five-hour flick cut down to that length.
The narrative moves at a glacial pace and packs in so many subplots that it becomes barely coherent. Many of these don’t go much of anywhere, which leaves us with the impression of a picture stretched too far – or one chopped down so much that its pieces lose connection.
Even so, this lack of direction doesn’t make the movie hard to follow. However, it does turn into something tough to enjoy.
Heck, entertainment value be damned - I’d be happy if Shepherd simply held my interest. It never manages to involve us, as the muddled focus keeps us at a distance.
Ultimately, I think Shepherd suffers from self-indulgence most of all. De Niro clearly is an actor’s director, as he seems unable to cut any of the performers’ work.
He can’t tell the wheat from the chaff, so he throws everything into the mix. That results in the terribly slow pace of the flick, so the movie plods along at such a sluggish rate that it often becomes tough to remain awake.
With Damon’s Edward as the heart of the story, matters become even more boring. Damon plays the part completely devoid of personality.
I guess that’s the point, but it becomes tough to focus on such a bland character for almost three hours. The thinness of the role doesn’t help, as we get some basic obvious exposition that supports the theme of duty vs. desire, but nothing else develops.
Shepherd ends up as a long-winded bore. It wears its political heart too much on its sleeve as it alludes to circa 2006 abuses of intelligence, but even those elements can’t generate any heat.
Instead, the film feels like it treads water the whole time. The tale goes nowhere.