Talk:The Good Shepherd (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project The Good Shepherd (film) is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Who threw Miriam off the plane the russians or the CIA? == Tying one's shoes? __ I just saw the movie last night, and don't understand the significance of tying shoes when the poetry professor is being told that he's stepped beyond acceptable bounds. Anyone out there know what that was about? Thanks, --Jamiam2 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tying the shoes is a signal that the professor isn't going to retire quietly. Wilson is to tie his shoes, indicating that the thugs should take out the prof. The kicker is that the prof already knows the signal - so he essentially commits suicide and makes a powerful statement to Wilson re:trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.171.32 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


For the fiance's killers, my money's on the main character Wilson. Though there were benefits for either side killing the woman, Wilson's benefits outweighed the other's. Either Soviet intelligence or Ulysses working alone stood to lose possible leverage with Wilson by commiting the murder -- by angering Wilson and cutting off their conduit. Though the Russians could still have embarrassed the Wilsons with the tape alone, and the girl gone, her survivability may have enhanced the credibility of their case, since she could always swing back to the Russian side or be coerced. Unless it were for sheer meanness, I doubt Ulysses would have orchestrated the murder privately. After all he'd told Wilson that Wilson's son's involvement had potential "intel" value, even after Wilson told Ulysses he'd decided he would choose his country over his son thus greenlighting the son.
Ulysses had somewhat of a spy/personal bond with Wilson which he seemed to want to preserve. There's no hint of Wilson being tailed to Congo by the CIA so, lacking this, I'd guess Wilson orchestrated the murder himself through back channels, as he had more motive. Especially since other murders in the film were explained by various indications. Wilson mitigated the blackmail threat and lessened the chance of his son being implicated. He also protected his son from marrying someone of questionable allegiance, while punishing the fiance or his son for a breach that really was of the father's making. It was he who talked about the highly sensitive precise location of a covert military strike that would affect the western hemisphere for decades on his front lawn, within earshot of possibly many others. By killing her, Wilson was also ridding the western world of a Russian spy. And possibly averting the Wilson family being found to be treasonous in two of three generations.
Of course a murder by Wilson wouldn't make his problems disappear but this moderately plausible scenario poses the question of what does constitute treason, how treasonous the son's actions truly were, and what might have been the outcome, had the son's pecadillo been divulged. In the throes of passion and in the context of complaining about secrecy in his family, the son unwittingly gave up an unknown Spanish word that he overheard his father utter in their garden. Hardly a longitude and latitude. It seems Wilson's job itself, rather than the son, were more at risk, due to his own ineptness.
DonL 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Clover already pregnant?

It used to say after the introduction of Clover that she, more likely, was already pregnant and was looking for "the perfect husband." I removed it because a) there is absolutely no allusion to this in the film and b) I think that the idea the Ed Jr. might not have been Edward's son undermines Edward's motivations later on in the film. While I think it's highly plausible that Ed Jr. was not his son, it diminshes the effect of the latter half of the movie. - catgirl667

[edit] Who did it?

I am still confused over, who was the source of the leak about Bay of Pigs? Please explain better--Drussel3 12:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward's son.

My take would be to say that the leak comes from the Valentin Mironov/Arch Cummming's treachery and maybe or in a more minor way from Edward Jr.'s indiscretion. The latter having further been instrumentalised by "Ulysses" as a mean of pressure upon Wilson. It seems to to me that Wilson unmasking Valentin/Cumming after having discovered that the sex-tape/photo was of his son supports this. Since stopping the investigation after having identified the "stranger" would be logical. But honestly I'm rather confused over the plot too so...
While Mironov & Cumming's were both spys (obviously), the source of the leak was Edward's son. Ulysses had the tape of Edward's son saying the Spanish word for "Bay of Pigs", which was how they knew where to find the Americans. Bjewiki 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, you 're right on this. But then what was the point of Ulysses attempted blackmail with the sex-photo/tape? Since nor Ed Jr. neither Wilson himself were rendered responsible for the leak after the photo was identified. The only thing CIA did was to kill off Ed Jr.'s fiancee. Did the KGB really bet on Wilson compassion for his son's love-life and a woman he doesn't even know, a russian agent nonetheless? Or maybe it wasn't CIA who killed off the fiancee? I'm still confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.122.246.12 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Although, it's never made precisely clear who killed the fiance, I think we were led to believe that the Russians did it ("she knew too much"), because Ulysses pretty much gave Edward the chance to stop it, but Edward didn't. As for the blackmail, that's a good question, but it seem that Ulysses was trying to get Edward to do him a favor sometime in the future, which as your pointed out wasn't very effective. I would watch it again to try to figure it out, but to be honest, I don't think I could take it for another 2hours, 40 minutes. Bjewiki 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think, the Russians killed the fiance. So they sacrified one of their sources of information, while Wilson sacrifies an CIA Agent in return (identifying to Ulysses him by giving "cardinal" the dollar note). 141.63.103.233 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning?

I just saw this movie yesterday (it was my mother's birthday present to me, actually) and while I enjoyed it, something's been nagging me since. Both my mom and I have asked several others who've seen it what the title of the film means- since unless we missed it, there is no such reference to it in the film itself. Mom surmises that it could be a reference to James Jesus Angleton's middle name. Any ideas? --72.49.117.53 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)dethtoll

My husband and I just saw this movie this afternoon. I believe the title might refer to Jesus Christ calling himself "The Good Shepherd". That is one who puts all before the good of his sheep. In the movie, Matt Damon might be looked upon as a good shepherd as he put everything (family,friends, soul) before his sheep (his country). The website for the quotation is: http://www.2pi.info/bible/studies/ShepherdStudy/GoodShepherd.html --72.197.239.94 07:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

C.Clarke

While I think that you are right about the reference to Jesus Christ, I think that what you mean to say is that he put the good of his sheep before everything, rather than putting everything before the good of his sheep. Edward put the good of his country before everything else. Not to get into a religious discussion here, but if Jesus put everything ahead of the good of his sheep, we'd all be completely out of luck! -catgirl667
I'm not too sure what the films title does mean but i do remember watching the film and hearing them say 'shepherd' but i cant remember when, perhaps getting the script and searching for the word might give a clue to the meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blah0401 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
See The Good Shepherd (religion). --Mathew5000 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with the assessment that "The Good Shepherd" is Damon's character, based on James Jesus Angleton and the Christian religious reference. That makes sense to me. I've seen it 5 times now.

Wow, why did you see it so many times? I will probably go again. -- Rollo44 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments about Jesus being The Good Shepherd. It might have come from the end of the movie where Hayes told Wilson about a man who had asked him why it is CIA not the CIA. And he replied by asking, is there an article in front of God. I think it's an allusion to CIA considering itself to be somewhat like the God, watching over people and controlling their lives. Kystilla 11:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things are bugging me. First is, what exactly is the significance of the first scene, dollar bill serial number lookup that corresponds to the agent Cardinal? There's a quote there that says "Cardinal wants to talk", or "Cardinal is coming in" or something. At the end of the film, before the killing of Ed Jr.'s fiancee, Edward gives a dollar bill to Ulysses' aide (Sasha?), saying, "It's a CARDINAL rule to be generous in a democracy." Is this a betrayal of a CIA asset to Ulysses so that Edward Jr. fiancee (Kokoh?) is to be killed (a trade)? Who has Kokoh killed? The CIA or KGB? It is interesting to me that when Edward comforts his son at the church, he says that he didn't have Kokoh killed, but yet quotes his son on the tape saying "I love you, I love you so much". Is this a way of communicating, that in fact, Edward Jr. through his indiscretion, has had Kokoh killed? The last thing is the Bay of Pigs list. Allen and Hayes both ask Edward for the "Zasomething" list (of people who knew). There isn't one because it's a silent op. It almost sounds like "The Zapruder List", but obviously my paranoia has taken over at this point. What is that word before list? Allen also says "Rockingchair is smiling". I take that to mean that President Kennedy likes the Bay of Pigs invasion plan and has given thumbs up. Oh, yeah, it's a dirty blonde hair that falls out of the Ulysses book (before Edward captures Modin). Who does that hair belong to? Edward Jr.? Thanks.\

"Cardinal" was the code name for a CIA spy. The reference at the end "It's a CARDINAL rule", was showing that Ulysses' aide was a spy for the CIA. Bjewiki 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: error

"In the scene where young Edward remembers the day of his father's suicide, he states that his father was an admiral. However the the uniform shown is that of a Navy Captain."

This is not necessarily an error. Admirals (generally) are captains before they are admirals. Oh, wait, the guy suicided. Listen, people, I've been awake for almost thirty-four hours. Go stick your heads in pigs. So I shot my mouth off without RingTA. Shoe me. Shoemaker-Levy me. Levy me a tax to build a better bomb...er...encyclopaedia. Woof woof meow pow how now brown cow la di da dow (dow jones). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.95.96.136 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Where the error mentioned is a misspelled word on the teletype machine it was really quite common. You had one chance to get the spelling right. You could not take back and correct it. As long as the meaning could be determined you went on with the rest of the message.

[edit] Fordham graduate

The "errors" section of the article says that it's unlikely that Edward's underling would be such a low-ranking non-commissioned officer if he were a university graduate with five years in the military. I think that statement is true, but it's an intentional error on the part of the director in order to underscore the WASP-dominated structure of the OSS/CIA. The underling is obviously from a Catholic and ethnic background, so when Edward comes along he's "naturally" superior to the man who has much more experience and similar educational qualifications.

Only in the past century has the military really changed this (and the movie is an anachronism since it takes place during WWII)--in the past, teenage sons of wealth and nobility, even without a degree, would have regularly outranked far more experienced career soldiers and sailors.


"walking in the Congo in 1969" eight years after the Bay of Pigs - are you sure? Jwh 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Looks as though people are editing this based on the fact that they fail to note that it is a fictional film and are taking it as though it is presented as a non-fictional work. Suggest that editing be limited to registered users. Someone keeps vandalising sections with unnecessary personal commentary.Nf utvol 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Agreed, the Correlations with Non-Fictional Events section needs to be fixed; it's written like a conversation, not an entry. 63.229.196.75 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fredericks makes sexual advances on Wilson" What? 69.143.11.232 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "what?"-- he does! Were we watching the same movie? =D 5/2/2007 -catgirl667

Agreed with Catgirl - there are subtle but very clear advances (notably using the cane to run over wilsons shoulder) Dudebri1 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yale and women

This point about Yale not admitting women doesn't seem well conceived. There's no indication that Laura is a student at Yale, other than the fact that she is in the library, and therefore it is conceivable that she has some other affiliation with the university. I'm going to remove it. lollk 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)~

[edit] Cardinal/Ulysses Blackmail attempt

It seems to me that the link between the Soviet Aide as the Spy "Cardinal" is a weak one. Yes, "Cardinal" is used in both places. However the claim in the article that Edward gives Ulysses the same dollar is just a guess. You never see the Serial Numbers, and while it makes a nice conspiracy theory, there is no proof this is the case.

Kokoh was an undercover operative for the KGB spying on Ed Jr. Since Edward and the CIA now know she is a KGB operative, she has been compromised. As such the KGB has to eliminate her. Ulysses's blackmail attempt "You'd like her in your family" is an offer not to kill her thereby allowing her to marry Ed Jr. Edward refuses to betray his country for Ed Jr. with the result of the death of Kokoh.

So I think the paragraph should be re-written to eliminate the supposition of the connection of the dollar and Cardinal. Also the reasoning of the Ulysses blackmail should be corrected.

Wouldn't it be too coincidental to use a dollar bill and the use and emphasis on the word "cardinal" that Edward gives the Soviet aide? Looks like the main article's linking this to anything has been removed.
DonL 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DonL - it is not the exact same dollar bill, but that is not the point. It still is linking cardinal, linking the aide with him. However, this is an amazingly slight reference, so it is hard to put too much stock into it. Dudebri1 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Affair pictures?

Who sent the pictures of Edward and Laura to Clover? Her brother was already dead and I assumed nobody he works with really cared about his personal life.

Best guess: His son. 68.146.22.0 05:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Unlikely, more likely the russians. (The russians were with Edward when he first saw Laura, likely some spies around). I can't think what their motive would be though. More likely it was simply a dramatic element to support the idea that everyone is watching everything you do, trust no-one.

Assume it was the Brits .. after all, they ran Modin (sp?) <Yurin Nosenko > at Wilson, (JJA's downfall.

[edit] Two questions

This article states that this film was nominated for an academy award. For what was it nominated exactly? Also, what were the film's total grossings? Thanks.

[edit] The summary is too opinionated

Saying that Edward lost his "soul" is just an opinion. Not even everybody believes one has a soul, so I think that part should be cleaned up some. Kris 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews in the CIA

The comment at the bottom of the article seems a little reactionary. It is exactly the reasons outlined in the film that led to the CIA being jokingly referred to by other law enforcement and intelligence agencies (both in the US and Internationally) as Christians In Action. While they used operatives of various backgrounds the directors of the CIA and just about all of the upper echelon staff have always been Christian.

[edit] Summary way too long

What's the template to request a shorter, more concise summary? --24.249.108.133 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

Funny how Wilson, a top CIA division head, didn't know his kid was traipsing to Congo on weekends just as easy as a trip to the 7-11.

Though it was panned in many places, this flick had entertainment value but could have done without some of the family drama subplots. It's refreshing to see the old-school extraction of clues from the tape of the son, instead of CSI-types, working CAD systems and satellite maps, and amazing us with "wow, a ZOOM function!" Worked into the plot, the Russians' giving Wilson the edited tape for the CIA analysts to have just barely enough to eventually find the location, without the portion clearly identifying Wilson's son, was interesting cat-and-mouse.

I thought the spy-bashing and CIA-bashing was a bit simplistic. But Mr. De Niro doesn't seek to make this film a "statement" or strive for "quasi-documentary" status, as Mr. Oliver Stone's "JFK" seemed to, though "JFK"'s confabulations, like the machete murder, made it highly entertaining. The article says that Mssrs. Coppola and Di Caprio bailed on this film, along with part of the budget, and maybe this affected the film's final cuts. I prefer first-hand or even second-hand sourcing, as found in books by Mr. James Bamford, intelligence author ('Puzzle Palace' and Body of Secrets). By the way the CIA will soon declassify and post 700 pages of its pre-1974 history on line, after fighting to avert it.

Though I haven't read it in its entirety, I thought the summary and information on this article of appropriate encyclopedic length.

DonL 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a moved tag......

can't stand these really - but here's the tag from the article;

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

now hopefully someone will go do something! don't just sit there! - Purples 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SKS rifles

Is it just me or do I see grenade launcher on the one on the right? That would make it model 59/66 Yugo. 24.168.46.154 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictionalized story?

Does anyone have access to what was based on real events and what was invented for the movie? Also, how did the things that resembled real events modified for the story? (For example...was the son of a CIA counter-intelligence officer the leak that was the reason for the failure of the Bay of Pigs?)

-Alex.rosenheim 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to the question

I removed this from the article and placed it here: [Question: is this a reference to Kim Philby, the British intelligence officer, and double-agent, who flees to the USSR?]

And I will answer the question with a YES. The main character is based on James Jesus Angleton who was a friend of Philby. Atleast it is said in the documentary on the bonus DVD that comes with the special edition release. Angleton was "betrayed" by Philby who shows up in Moscow. Cummings does the same. The Arch Cummings character is thus a reference to Philby, at least that is how I understand it. -- JoeneB, 15 August, 22:48 (CEST) (non-registered user)

[edit] Ambiguities about Fredricks and Laura

Fredricks' assassination may well heve been staged: When Fredricks is thrown in the water, one of his purported assassinators throws a tube in the water, which is seen vertically extending out of the water - this is not how a tube would normally float! Could it be that it was used by Fredricks to breathe underwater?

It's his wooden walking cane,floating handle down. There is no doubt in my mind Fredericks is killed. SeaphotoTalk 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Laura, when she leaves Edward by cab, it appears that a pedestrian approaches the cab in traffic, and a gunshot is heard (the car and the person are obscured at that scene), and something like gunsmoke is seen spreading over the car. Edward witnesses this. At that point, the movie goer may be left with the impression that Edward was somehow an accomplce to the "tying of Laura's shoes". Yet, as some later point, an agent hands to Laura her cross, purportedly from Edward. Again, more ambiguity!

Could these scenes could represent some tests to determine Edward's allegiance / dedication to the service?

Rastapopoulos 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward and Laura's Relationship

Edward breaks up with Laura by sending his assistant to return a cross he'd kept of hers when they were college sweethearts.

I don't believe that an ending of their relationship is implicitly stated in the movie or in that scene, though it could be interpreted that way. It could also be interpreted as Edward symbolically telling Laura that the life he has to live is a cross they'll have to bear, as they have before. The summary should be more open in its interpretation of this scene, as it is one of many with ambiguous meaning. Patrolmanno9 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Credit

I think you give these guys too much credit. The plot is full of credibility gaps and they just didn't bother to fill them. The professor chooses to be brutally killed rather than just retire? They would trust him to retire and keep quiet? Would they really recruit an obvious weakling like Wilson's son? What plausible rationale would the Russian spy give to get him to repeat the conversation? Why did he act so furtive when he realize he had probably been overheard in the bath unless he had guilty knowledge of something or other? Who ratted Wilson out to his wife and why? - I just read the rationale for that above, which agress the motive is a mystery for the Russians - and it's unlikely the son would want to break them up when the father leaving has always been his big fear. How does Ulysses know Wilson will show up looking for the location? The betrayal by dollar bill would seem to require complicity by the Turturo character, which seems unlikely. Why does Wilson continue to trust Mironov after the LSD incident when he trusts nobody - why not put him under - respect? Give me a break. And why was he so sure that the underling would know Ulysses weakness? Until we saw the guy I thought it was Ulysses defecting, then I thought Wilson knew it wasn't Ulysses but was covering it up, finally I realized it was an underling. Remember he never followed up, that we know of, with anyone after he saw Ulysses in the film of Mexico or South America or wherever. I get the impression that they started down one plot line, ran into problems, and switched to another one without fixing the inconsistencies, maybe more than once. It would be interesting to analyze which scenes are consistent with one another, like the implications Wilson is covering something up - I don't that's subtlety, I think that's sloppiness. If it's meant to mislead to add suspense, then it's ham-fisted.

They needed an extra 40 minutes to weave in more deliberate ambiguity to mask the inept ambiguity. I love De Niro, but he's made some stinkers as an actor. I'm not clear on how much he's responsibile for the mediocrity in this movie, but it's disappointing - just my opinion, obviously. I also think Matt Damon is great, but 'Gerry'? - up for awards - really? Too much unreasoning awe for admittedly really talented people. It doesn't do them any good to get distorted feedback on their efforts. I think at that level they don't want unreasoning praise, they want to be truly creative. Unlike a lot of athletes. Again, just my opinions, maybe I'm just missing the subtleties, but look at all the efforts above to make the movie plausible. It shouldn't have to be so hard. I also don't see the point of throwing everything about the cold war, plausible or no, into one bag.

I also thought the use of the term "mole" to describe Mironov might have been technically correct by stretching the definition, but I don't think it's a realistic usage - here's the Wikipedia definition.

"A mole (also called a defector in place, an informant and in the Mafia a rat) is a spy who works for an enemy nation and works within his nation's government. In some usage, a mole differs from a defector in that a mole is a spy before gaining access to classified information, while a defector only becomes a spy after gaining access. However, others use the term mole to describe any agent of a foreign power within a government organization."

The key phrase is 'works within his nation's government'. The last sentence could be taken to imply otherwise, but I think it actually means some use mole in both senses, and I don't think Mironov would be seen as working within an agency, he is being used by the agency. If genuine, he would have been a mole from the soviet point of view under the all-inclusive description. Maybe I'm nit-picky, but it rang false the moment he said "I'm not the mole".

I'm clear the sexual advance was when the professor ran his cane over Wilson's shoulder. I'm glad the whole thing was explained here, because I didn't realize the professor was not in cahoots with the FBI. I thought being watched was to make him more plausible to the Nazis. I though it was a test to see if Wilson would blow him or blow him. He passed because he didn't and he did, or the other way around. There it gets hazy - why does the professor point out to Wilson he's being watched in either case? Why did he turn in the professor because he liead about the poem? Possiblitie: 1. He was intellectually insulted because the professor lied. 2. He was physically insulted because the professor tried to seduce him with a fake poem? 3. The professor had to look it up in a book so he must be a phony, thereby a Nazi - but I don't think he was a phony. The only conclusion that I can come to is he betrayed him because he was in an intellectual or sexual snit. It's like William Wallace in 'Braveheart' resisting involvement in the struggle until his girlfriend is killed or Benjamin Martin being proclaimed 'The Patriot' although he resists being one until is son is killed. Assigning patriotic motives to acts not patriotically inspired invalidates the whole premise of the movie. In this case Wilson is a super-patriot. Lucky being a vengeful little bitch got him in with the other ubermenschen-envy crowd.

I thought they were also worried about Wilson's obvious but apparently misleading gayness (apparently he was a metrosexual with no fashion sense) when they surveilled him in the Library until he hooked up with the girl in the stupidest "meet cute" scene I ever saw.

Also what was all that stuff with the book next to 'Ulysses' being raised up a little and a light seeming to shine out from under it? Then when he pulls 'Ulysses' out oh so slowly the other book drops down with a click or thud or whatever. And the hair. What's that about? More pointless ambiguity to make the inadvertent ambiguity more ambgiuosly ambiguous, or a plot point that was left out somewhere along the line when the plot lines switched? I just realized it's probably the artsy-fartsy English guy's hair, but so what? The book was opened so there must be skullduggery?

I hope it's all out of my system now and I never come back to this page. Everytime I come back to edit I remember some other ridiculous inconsistency.

3 months after I posted this I decided I was wrong about De Niro and 'artistic integrity' - doesn't matter, but I'm just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YetAnotherCommenter (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

YetAnotherCommenter (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo on all your criticisms about this film. While I love the fabric of all the intrigue, the script is just too vague and ambiguous/misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.234.65 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)