The Conspirator

Directed by: Robert Redford

Written by: James D. Solomon; James D. Solomon, Gregory Bernstein (story)










Most Americans know, at least vaguely, the story of the assassination of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.  Fewer are familiar with the trial of the conspirators who help hatch the plot.

Frederick Aiken (McAvoy) has been tapped to defend Mary Surratt (Wright), who has been accused of harboring the conspirators in her boarding house.  But Aiken quickly finds out that, in the case of a military tribunal, justice may not be easy.  He is further upset when he finds out the entire trial itself may be an attempt to draw out a Surratt's son from hiding, even if it means that she might be executed.

From the standpoint of story, "The Conspirator" weaves an interesting and emotionally charged tale.  There are some interesting questions of ethnics and justice raised, mixed between plot twists (including a big one right near the end).  The actors are solid, even if it felt that they were limited by the script and story itself.

The biggest issue with "The Conspirator" is that it fails to do anything new or novel.  It tells its story in a generally straight and traditional way.  It makes its point clearly, but does not present any new or challenging ways of thinking about the issues.

For better or for worse, "The Conspirator" felt like what it was: a historical drama.  It's good, but could have done much more.

X-Men: First Class

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Screenplay by: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn

Story by: Bryan Singer, Sheldon Turner

It's been a long time since we've had a good "X-Men" film. Alas, "The Last Stand" was not up to the same standard as the rest, and I'm not sure that the origin film for Wolverine really counts. In the shadow of the success of Christopher Nolan's success with his Batman reboot series (and somehow despite failure of the Superman reboot), it was only a matter of time before a new X-Men series was born.

The film begins with an evil Nazi scientist Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) experimenting on a young Magneto, finding that anger releases his power. A quick jump forward to the 1960s, a young Charles Xavier is writing papers about the evolutionary nature of genetic mutations on humans. Xavier and Magneto cross paths in an attempt to stop Shaw, and so, with some financing from the CIA, the X-Men are born. The two start rounding up young mutants and training them. Shaw shows up and convinces a few of the mutants to join his fight against humanity. The rest of the X-Men go "underground" and finish their training. Eventually (in a slight re-writing of history), Shaw tries to start World War III via the Cuban Missile Crisis, and only the X-Men can stop him. Although a nuclear war is averted, Magneto begins to ascribe to Shaw's views and leaves the X-Men, taking a few followers with him...

As an X-Men fan, I was happily pleased with this film. There are certainly some continuity issues with this film and some other minor points in the other X-Men movies, but, frankly, I didn't care. The feature I most appreciated was the telling of Magneto's story - spending time as a Nazi hunter, helping Xavier without buying into his idealism - which was often alluded to in the earlier films but largely went untold.

Both James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender both did excellent jobs of playing their characters (Xavier and Magneto, respectively) in their own unique way while also staying close to the characters which Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had already developed. I was completely able to buy into their characters as younger versions of the characters I already know, while also understanding that the story was not necessarily a direct prequel to the earlier stories. In other words, Xavier and Magneto were rich powerful characters.

The film's flaw may have been in it's overreaching story. It tried to tell too many stories - so many that it was hard to care about all of them, and a few of them could have been cut on the editing room floor. For example, as much as I love Oliver Platt, his character was largely irrelevant and was mainly a conduit to connect Xavier to an early version of the Cerebro device. This added to the already film's already long running time. There was also a montage sequence, which I usually despise, although in his case it worked well with the comic book motif of the movie (with all those little side frames and whatnot).

The effects were impressive, if a bit cartoonish - which is fine because the movie is basically a glorified comic book. I'm not sure if some of the scenes will play well away from the big screen, but only time will tell on that.

I recommend seeing this film, especially for fans of the X-Men series. The film is not disappointing. Just remember - it's a comic-book... it's a comic-book... it's a comic-book...

Atonement

Tagline: “You can only imagine the truth.”

Director Joe Wright’s adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel “Atonement” tells version of the fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” set in World War II England.

In the first act, Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) has a crush on the one of her family’s servants Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), but her image of him is ruined when she reads an inappropriate note he had written to her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightly) and when she stumbles upon the two in a private moment of passion. When another family member is sexually assaulted, Briony lies and says that she saw Robbie doing it, using the raunchy note as evidence.

In the second act, taking place a few years later in the midst of World War II, Bobby has volunteered to join the British army in exchange for his freedom. Cecilia, realizing her sister’s lie, renews their affair and they exchange letters and passionate visits. Of course, the irony (in case you haven’t caught it) is that he has put his life in danger to earn freedom from a crime he didn’t commit. The two carry on a passionate affair, always with the promise of returning to England together.

The third act involves Brioney (now played by Romola Garai) coming to terms with the effects of her lie. She volunteers as a nurse, only to realize (in a very graphic moment) the power of love compared to the brutalities of war. Briony tracks down her sister, only to have to confront both Cecilia and Robbie, home on leave, together. Although it is too late to change much, Briony agrees to write a letter to the court explaining that she had lied as a child. She leaves, ashamed, giving the lovers a moment of privacy before he needs to report to the front lines.

The film has a coda, though, set in contemporary times. Briony is now an old woman (played by Vanessa Redgrave), and reveals that her latest novel, “Atonement” – telling the story of the triangle of love, sin, and contrition we’ve been watching – is completely true. Except! (she reveals) that Robbie actually died as the British army was evacuating Dunkirk and that her sister was killed by a bomb during the Battle of Britain. The part where Robbie and Cecilia meet up was completely made up by Briony for her book, giving them the chance to be happy together that she had originally taken away.

(Phew! Enough plot summary for now? I think so.)

I guess my strongest criticism of “Atonement” is that it tries to be too many things – an epic, a love story, a period piece, with sprinklings of social commentary. If it had focused on one of these aspects, it would have been a much better film overall. For example, although the visual and emotional effects of the scene of Robbie at the evacuation of Dunkirk were incredibly powerful, I feel that this scene did not necessarily add any meaning or depth to the rest of the movie. Although I appreciated that the film did not shy away from the brutal realities of war – Robbie and Cecilia do not live happily ever after – the final visual of old Briony confessing her sins and working for atonement was little overboard. (If you don’t understand from watching the rest of the movie that writing the book and giving new life to the dead was her penance, then you must be dense.)

My other major problem is that the film was too darn literary. I mean, I understand that it was adapted from a novel, but for a movie with essentially three major characters there was too much time spent creating verisimilitude by developing background characters. I don’t mind symbolism either, but too many times in this movie the symbols were so blatant as to be intellectually jarring (such as how the characters are standing in relation to each other in the scene when Robbie is arrested). Even the moment of catharsis – a powerful scene in which Nurse Briony visits a dying soldier who recalls his lost love – is so telegraphed that there may as well have been a caption reading “THE MOMENT OF CATHARSIS – BRIONY REALIZES THE ERROR OF HER WAYS.”

Part of the reason I am so critical of this movie, though, is because it is so close to being great in my opinion, but just misses the mark. I want desperately to hold it in high esteem, but I restrain myself. It has all the traits of a great movie, but felt like everybody – the director, the actors, even the composer – were trying for a great movie. The music, the scenery, the costumes, the performances – everything felt like it was created with Oscar gold in mind.

So, ultimately, I will say that this was a pretty good movie. (I avoid saying that it was “enjoyable” because any movie in which the audience is exposed, in seriousness, to a man missing part of his skull is hard to call “enjoyable.”) I recommend it highly, and I wish I had seen it in the theatre. I just wish it could have been better, somehow.