Saw this one on the big screen over the weekend and have to say it's a good one. I'll cut to the chase on an issue that is always out there whenever there and about the Civil War in particular: the treatment of the issue of slavery. Know going in that The Conspirator does not deal with it-barely mentions it-at all.

In full disclosure of my feelings on the issue as it relates to its treatment in movies and the public media, I think those who pretend the issue wasn't the cause of the war or doesn't resonate to this day is, frankly, willfully ignoring voluminous history.

Having said, that I do also think its somewhat unfair to expect this movie, or any movie, to deal with every aspect of the Civil War-or any other historical topic-, and it's certainly impossible for any flick to deal with any topic to everyone's content.

This flick deals with one aspect, and one aspect only, of the conspiracy to assassinate and the actual murder of President Lincoln.That issue is the arrest, trial, and eventual execution of Mary Surratt, owner of a boardinghouse where the men who conspired to first kidnap and then kill President Lincoln met and used as quarters. The movie also goes into another aspect of this murder plot by touching base on the less well known fact that there was a plan in place to kill Secretary of State Seward and Vice President Johnson on the same night as Lincoln.

The flick moves quickly into the events of April 14, 1865 and tells us the tale through use of a montage of shots I found visually appealing and effective. I will say, however, that I do think one has to be somewhat familiar with the players and events of the night to get the full impact because there is little explanation by way of plot development 

Oh, sure, everyone knows Booth shot Lincoln but, trust me, this action literally takes a few seconds (as a point of fact, we never even see a frontal shot of the actor playing Lincoln) and then on to the meat of the story; the aftermath of the assassination and Mary Surratt's (Robin Wright State of Play The Pledge)  arrest and the lingering question-both then and now-of her actual involvement in the conspiracy.

Our other protagonist is Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy Atonement) who we first see in an opening scene view of a grim battlefield as the Union officer, bleedging profusely, is concerned only with literally trying to hold and talk his wounded friend, Nicholas Baker (Justin Long Drag Me To Hell) 

Once baack in Washington, D.C. after both the war and the assassination, Aiken is a new practicing attorney whose mentor is Connecticut senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson Valkyrie) who wants to see Surratt get a fairer trial than the military tribunal ordered by our movie's antagonist, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline The Pink Panther). It seems that a true blue Yankee like Aiken will ensure a fairer consideration from the tribunal towards Surratt than a Union southerner like Johnson.

Aiken is reluctant to say the least, at first but is diligent in trying to first understand and then represent the reluctant Surratt. The (historically arguable) main premise of the flick is that the U.S. government was persecuting Mary Surratt chiefly to put pressure on her fugitive son, John, was clearly a conspirator as well. Aiken also comes to know the other Surratt child, a daughter who is under house arrest during the time of her mother's trial (Evan Rachel Wood The Wrestler) And, of course, he comes to empathize and, frankly, do one hell of a job in defending his client.

The acting is splendid. Wright, in addition to looking almost exactly like Mary Surratt in the few surviving pictures, does a wonderful job of making us really emphathize with her more as a person and a mother than I would have expected. McAvoy is very good, too, real earnest as a rue blood Yankee and very convincing as a young lawyer on his feet in tough criminal case (been there, done that a few dozen times myself).

The chemistry between Wright and McAvoy is key to making the flick work and I think they nailed it. There is tension and tenderness at the appropriate times and, thankfully, Redford did not succumb to the typical Hollywood temptation to construct or imply any romantic connection where none actually existed.

In my opinion, Kline deserves special note for his portrayal of Stanton, clear set up as the antagonist (again, historically arguable) in this telling of the story. I think those fans who identify the best of his work with comedic roles will be pleasantly surprised here (and don't feel too bad if you don't realize its Kline right away, I was about 15 minutes into the flick before I leaned over to my date and said "Is that Kevin Kline?")  

I have to give another shout out to the actor playing the leader of the military tribunal (Colm Meaney Five Fingers The Damned United). This guy is fast becoming one my favorite all time character actors...as well as one of the best. If there are records kept for a category of "stealing the scene with fewest minutes of screen time" , Mr. Meaney has to be near the top. He's got that much of a screen presence.

I liked the flick and I think you will, too, but I can't include it as one of my faves, chiefly because it is a little to sympathetic, in my humble opinion, to people who were, without a doubt, involved in the plot to assassinate Lincoln.

The idea, as strongly implied by the flick, that Mary Surratt was completely unaware of anything at all and was only trying to protect her son (who was being ably protected and hidden by significant higher ups of the Catholic Church) is, to put it mildly, a huge stretch and think that those who have, or will, look at her case would fairly conclude that she was definitely complicit in both the planning of the kidnappning and eventual murder of the President.

Also, even at the time of her trial, sentiment about her innocence was minimal. The question then and the real issue that extends until today is whether or not she should have been executed.   

So, my main reason for not including it among my faves is what I deem to be a little too much sympathy for certain people, somethng that has been going on in the popular culture in terms of "Confederate worship" (my term) for decades. I know some won't agree with me, but I'm heartened that I'm not the only one. Look, there is no doubt that it is difficult to criticize the movie when it comes to hard, cold, historical facts.

The care taken to be accurate on certain interesting & important facts is to be commended, e.g. the fact that Booth barred the door to the Presidential box, the absence of the Presiden't bodyguard from his post, the chase given to Booth by members of the cast of the play Lincoln was watching, the fact that Lincoln was so tall that they had to lay him diagonally to fit on his death bed, the fact that the entire cast of the play was detained for questioning, the 'lynch mob' atmosphere that struck many unfortunate men who bore a resemblance to Booth, Mary Surratt's extreme illness due to h her menstrual cycle during the trial, the care given to keep the sun off of her face for comfort-and no one else's-with a parasol against the sun minutes before hanging her... and it goes on...all facts portrayed historically accurate in the movie, added without distracting from the story this particular flick wanted to tell.

So, why am I not categorizing it as historically brilliant? Two words. John Clampitt. Who is he, you might ask? Well, he is the lawyer who defended Mary Surratt along with Fredrick Aiken. And who played him in the movie, you might ask? No one. Do I mean he was portrayed, but uncredited? Nope, no one. Completely whisked from history in this version. So, yeah a little tough for me to give the flick the highest historical mark with that big of an ommission.

Some will undoubtedly say, and have said, that this film is allegorical to the present day situation with military trials and Guantonomo with its theme being the view of the politically outspoken Redford. I can't go quite that far. This event really happened. How one interprets it is one thing, but the idea it could be used to prove a point about a situation with an entirely different set of circumstances is a stretch to me.

Much to my chagrin, I don't know Mr. Redford (I'm going to guess that most making the criticism don't either) and I won't deny his well known political views might have influenced his decision to tell this particular story, but when you tell a story and are accurate with the facts I don't see it as allegorical. My slight problem is how some of those facts are portrayed and the decision to ignore or downplay some others.

I would be surprised if we don't hear some chatter about The Conspirator come Oscar time.      

Now, this one was a little bit different. The setting has been done before, post apocalypse/ nuclear war America, but I thought the flow of the story, not to mention the not-so-subtle underlying theme was kind of unique.

Eli (Denzel Washington The Manchurian Candidate  Inside Man) is a traveler who is walking across the country, going westward on foot, as he has been for the thirty or so years after "the flash", which is what everyone calls the huge event that, apparently, has made life what is at this time: desolate,  unforgiving and ravaged landscape with no rule of law or real societal structure. Many seemingly do not even seem to recall what life was like prior to the flash.

And, why is our protagonist trudging on foot? Well, the primary reason is that he has heard a calling to do so and he is a man of immense faith. The other is that the days of public transportation and in tact highways and biways are long gone. Eli carries with him a book, a large leather bound one and he is, to say the least, extremely protective of it. It seems obvious that some people would go to any lengths to get it. 

As you might surmise, such a breakdown in society will foster lawlessness and Eli has to fight off marauders and looters often...even when he comes to a town that appears to be relatively civilized.  

The town is run, effectively, by tough guy Carnegie (Gary Oldman Air Force One, The Contender)  who takes a very keen interest in obtaining Eli's book. He'll apparently stop at nothing, to the point of attempting to use his paramour, Claudia (Jennifer Beals Break A Leg Desolation Sound).  Attempts to pry the book, or any real information about it, from Eli prove unsuccessful, but Claudia's daughter, Solaris (Mila Kunis Extract Max Payne) is so fascinated by the mysterious Eli that she drops everything to follow him.

Eli, despite saving Solaris's life, is none to pleased to have her tag along but he eventually goes along with her presence reluctantly, though he is just as admant about not letting her look or touch the book nor will he tell her what it is or teach her to read. 

The Book of Eli is, in many ways, a very dark movie. The Hughes brothers do a great job of visually showing us a stark and decimated landscape where many people still bear the physical scars of what we presume was a nuclear holocaust, as well as some of the cultural and emotional ones as well.

For example, three decades after the "flash" there are a significant number of people who can't read, many of the younger ones have never seen a book.  Why is Eli's book so important and what will Carnegie do if/when he is able to get his hands on it?

There is a major reveal at the conclusion of the movie and, in my humble opinion, how you feel about the way the reveal is set up will likely be how you feel about the flick as a whole. For me, this is a good, not great film. I do think some might be turned off by the strong spiritual undertones of the film but, to be honest, in my opinion you can pretty much tell from the title what you're in for with this flick.  I'll probably never fully understand those who are so threatened by people who feel there things bigger-much bigger...incomprehensibly bigger...than  themselves and their immediate desires and needs.

Oh well, what the hell do I know, I just blog about flicks!

'    

I don't have the exact stats, but the Sherlock Holmes character/story has to be in the top 5 in terms of the number of times it has been remade, referenced, or  been paid homage in cinema. Hell, it might be in the top 2.

So, I think whenever you do a movie that contains a charaacter(s) that so many people know so well, it's got be a challenge, especially when you're looking to infuse the character with something new, which is done in this version. And done pretty well, in my opinion.

Yes, the most famous sleuth in the world is reivented as an action here of sorts in this version. Taking full advantage of modern day perks like CGI, we get to see Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr. U.S. Marshals) as a bare knuckle brawler in undergound fight clubs, dodging flying bullets,engagin in fisticuffs on scaffolds high in the sky, and jumping out of windows into the Thames. But, don't worry, Holmes exceptional powers of deduction and reasoning don't suffer a bit. Though these facets may be fairly original when it comes to the big screen, I believe they are likely more faithful to Doyle's novels.

Our story basically begins with the capture of, what we would today call a 'serial killer', a well heeled scoundrel named Lord Blackwell (Mark Strong Hotel) who will soon, as things tended in the late nineteenth century, hang for his crimes. He does, and is pronounced dead by no less an authority than Holme's good friend, partner, and respected medical practioner Dr. Watson (Jude Law The Aviator) 

And, here is where the fun begins, because this guy Blackwood just won't stay dead. Soon after his burial, he is seen walking around, which puts extreme fear into the hearts of many. Blackwood also had some politically connected friends who seem to be taking rumors of his return from the dead fairly well, in fact, we could be looking at a whole new form of government.

Of course, the fly in the ointment, so to speak, will be Holmes, who not only wants to stop the Blackwood menace, but it would be nice to erase the black eye his pal Watson has suffered by pronouncing Blackwood dead. No, Holmes does not consider for a second that there really is some black magic at work here. 

All in all, I think this movie works on the most important and basic level of flicks, particularly big budget flicks: it's fun. Downey does a good job as Holmes, mastering the ever tricky 'accent' issue as the only American actor of the major characters, you buy him as a Brit. More importantly, you completely by him as the sleek, brilliant, and enigmatic Holmes which is most important.

I also like Law as Watson, the Holmes-Watson relationship has been done several different ways, with this flick portraying them more as equals and caring friends than most. There is good chemistry between them.

Strong is outstanding as Blackwood. You can't have a great heo without a great villain to match wits with him-at least that's my philosophy, and Strong really does it here, in fact he was my favorite character in the movie.  

Rachel MacAdams (State Of Play) plays Irene Adler, Sherlock's female adversary and implied love interest. MacAdams does fine with her material but, frankly, I didn't think her character was necessary to the plot of the flick.

On the whole, if like The Sherlock Holmes legend or Robert Downey, jr., you will like this movie, I believe. As much as I liked Downey here, I  can't say he has become my favorite Holmes on the big screen (Christopher Plummer in Murder By Decree still holds the title.) , but this flick is a hell of a good time and, really, we don't need much more than that.

Do we?