Not so much to in any manner fault Redford's performance, or even play Devil's Advocate, but was thinking about something -
Obviously casting Redford is a rather obvious echo, or nod, or direct reference to his pictures made during the 70s. He's the actor most associated with the 70's political thrillers, in front of Warren Beaty and Dustin Hoffman. So I acknowledge that and actually find it kind of cool. It worked a lot better than Gene Hackman's somewhat sad appearance in Enemy of the State, which was supposed to play on his role in The Conversation.
But
Did having the most famous liberal in Hollywood (at least the senior liberal as George Clooney might be the reigning champ) end up being this super fascist strike anyone as a bit...cheeky? A bit of a wink too far? I mean I get that by casting Redford, his turn as the big bad is that much more surprising for some people but it felt just the slightest bit cheap to me. It's in no way this extreme but let's say someone had cast Mel Gibson in a movie about a Spanish Inquisitor who you find out in the very end had been saving the Jews. Or more reasonably, imagine if someone had cast Clint Eastwood as a Fox News pundit in a film but at the end it's revealed he's secretly been turning the network into MSNBC subversively.
I dunno. There was something a bit hammy about it. It worked, because Redford sold it, and the point was that Hydra was hiding everywhere, even behind Bob Woodward, but I dunno....