I probably wouldn't have gone to see this if James McAvoy hadn't been in it as it's essentially a court room drama and they can be, well, dull. But Mr McAvoy is endlessly watchable.
So did his blue eyes add enough sparkle to The Conspirator? Well there isn't a straightforward answer to that. The story is kind of interesting. It's set at the end of the American civil war when enmities could flare up again at any moment. Abraham Lincoln is assassinated and as many of the perpetrators are rounded up as possible and put on trial.
Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), the mother of one of the conspirators is also put on trial on the grounds that some of them stayed at her boarding house so she must have known what was being planned.
With people baying for blood and peace hanging in the balance it is obvious Mary is not going to get a fair trial. Cue lawyer Frederick Aiken (McAvoy) who is persuaded to defend her, reluctantly at first believing her as guilty as the rest.
The problem is, it is neither a drama in the vein of 'is she or isn't guilty' or 'edge of your seat you must save this poor woman'. It's difficult to get the measure of Mary partly because her relationship with her son is never really established and without being properly invested in her character it is difficult to feel anything other than mild shock at her treatment.
If I think back to what I remember most about this film it will be James McAvoy and Robin Wright to a lesser extent other than that it is a mildly entertaining history lesson.
What is probably most interesting is how it chimes with post 9/11 America and the Guantanamo era. But I can't quite work out whether or not the film-makers are having a dig at the hypocracy in reminding us of the American constitution over which the prosecutors in The Conspirator run rough shod.
I'm going to give it 55%, on IMDb it's got 72% and on Rotten Tomatoes the critics gives it 56% while audiences give it 62%
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.