Conspiracy (2008) User Reviews

Think Road House meets Billy Jack...but not in a good way

[orthodoxhedonist · 4/10 · 9 March 2008]

This was pretty abysmal, and all things considered, I probably should have known better when it said written and directed by Adam Marcus. Except that I had no idea who Adam Marcus was. Given his track record, justifiably so. The depressing part isn't so much the plot (which was written by your little brother in crayons), as much as it was watching Val Kilmer sink to new lows in his otherwise mostly storied career. When I tried to rationalize why Val Kilmer would stoop to the level of this ostensibly lost A-Team episode script directed by appointed directors like Marcus, all I could come up with would be his contempt for the real world equivalent to the radical right-wing Minutemen-like goons littering this pseudo-entertaining steaming pile of straight-to-vid. As it turns out, I was at least partially right, Kilmer did this movie for personal/political reasons (according to the related trivia).

I would write a summary, except I'm loath to spending more than the 90 minutes I already wasted watching it. You've seen it before, except this time it isn't Steven Seagal fighting for the rights of Native Americans, or Billy Jack fighting for the hippie commune, it's Val Kilmer fighting against a shoestring budget, and implied Halliburton employees as laughably stereotypical rednecks for the sake of immigrant rights and liberal ideology. A great cause, but ill-conceived and poorly executed here.

But don't take my word for it, no really. I want someone else to have to endure what I did.

I enjoyed it ... there, I said it!

[terence_laoshi-1 · 5/10 · 8 May 2008]

I quite enjoyed the film. There, I've said it. But having said that, let me say this ... it's no classic and Val Kilmer needn't dust off his dinner jacket for award ceremonies.

I'm prepared to add a little balance to the scathing comments that precede me and to say: this is not as bad as many people are saying.

Kilmer's performance is precisely what he would have been aiming for, and that was a reasonable choice. The supporting actors were sufficient, unless you're looking for an academy nominee (and you won't get any guarantees of that, anyway). The plot is predictable, but this is Hollywood after all and most movie-goers aren't looking for 90 minutes of cerebral exercise.

Almost all of the comments have cited the obvious shortcomings. It appears to be a relatively low-budget production and, if that is the case, it's a pretty reasonable effort, in my opinion. I can overlook the shallow performances of many of the supporting cast and the disorganized and disoriented extras.

Some comments are quite unfair, in my opinion, and only show that key plot points have been missed. This is quite a few years after Iraq 1. I suspect that some of the viewers think it's Iraq 2. Kilmer's weight and age, for example, are not a simple error of judgment by the Director and casting agent; rather, it's a simple error in the viewing of the movie.

I'm surprised that few people have noticed the very obvious Halliburton message. This is my major gripe. I have no interest in defending the indefensible, but the message delivery is quite infantile. It reached it's zenith with the overly-long speech by the main female character. She outlines how Halliburton ... sorry, Hallicorp or Halco or whatever it's called ... profits from supplying the weaponry to blow up foreign countries, then wins the contracts to build them again, ultimately never spending their ill-gotten gain in America (which is a curious extension of a moral point) ... and on and on it went. It was one of the most tedious and embarrassing 'worthy' speeches I've heard in a movie (and I support the basic concerns in the message). It was a parody of itself and I watched it three times to see if there was a glimmer of embarrassment in the actor's eyes. How do they do it? Method, I guess.

Aspects of the plot are quite a stretch. I can't see Dastardly Dick Cheney retiring to a dusty little town in the middle of nowhere to build an old-west replica as a base from which to live out his power-crazed fantasies. He already has a much better and more comfortable location for that.

Pointless Day at Black Rock

[tcowell56 · 5/10 · 23 November 2013]

This film is a pale imitation of the Spencer Tracy classic. It lacks the injustice, irony and clarity of the original. The film also lacks the menace and stifling tension of the Spencer Tracy version.

Tracy was tougher though more vulnerable than Kilmer. The original contained startling, precise violence against realistic bad guys. Tracy remains fearful but steadfast. Kilmer is fearless but on his journey fights against cartoon characters and takes too many beatings.

Having said all that the film is quite entertaining. Val Kilmer portrays a tough marine well and the film builds up nicely to the final crisis. The end itself is a bit soppy.

The original Bad Day at Black Rock is probably one of the finest films ever made. It made important political and civil rights points about freedom and justice. This remake is not in the same league and is unnecessary. watch.

waste of time

[pureskills2 · 1/10 · 18 March 2008]

this film was one of the biggest wastes of time ever. The characters were stone cold val kilmer especially. the plot was rubbish the acting was quite rubbish all the way through. the production looks good but the script and acting was some of the worst i have seen.

The story itself had a bit of potential but the follow though just didn't seem 2 happen. It seemed like the Americans pretending they want to save the native Americans. The rednecks characters were so stereotypical for small town America but they just made them the stupidest stereotypes so you would not even believe them. I suggest never seeing this film

Frustration

[compugor · 4/10 · 14 October 2021]

Val's character maintains a deadpan countenance throughout being blown to bits in Iraq, lifelessly engaging with hookers, and then getting beat down mercilessly by hateful gringos in Arizona who murdered his war buddy & family in cold blood. Wickedness dominates throughout so that even when he finally fights back, its anti-climactic, although he does do some slick special ops ghost work on some of those slimey pukes. There's a scene where the ditzy chick points a pistol at the arch baddie, and instead of immediately squeezing off multiple rounds, she dialogs with him, yakkity-yakking long enough for a henchman to come up behind her and take the gun. That scene is representative of how hard this movie is to watch. All that can be said positively about this movie is that it has Val Kilmer in it.

Seagalesque

[xnrat · 1/10 · 8 August 2008]

This movie sucked. I mean... wow. I surely didn't expect a masterpiece. But the actual level of suckitude left me speechless and almost breathless, as if my body was trying to rescue itself into sweet unconsciousness. It reminded me, and heavily at that, of Steven Seagal. But not the Seagal of "Under Siege" or "On Deadly Ground", who we all came to love. No, I mean the Steven Seagal who brought us straight-to-video suckfests like "Black Dawn".

Val Kilmer, like Seagal, is just a blimp, floating through the foggy remains of a story, while it rains wooden puppets. Who of course are the other actors in my weird little analogy.

Every little thing in this movie is bad and sucks in ways where there are no more words to articulate a warning. So let me just say this: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! Thank you for your attention.

Bringing Hell to God's Land

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 11 May 2008]

During the operation Storm in Desert in Iraq, the tough Marine Sergeant of Special Operations MacPherson (Val Kilmer) and his great pal and family man, the Mexican Corporal Miguel Silva (Greg Serano), are seriously wounded and retired. Later, the veteran and traumatized marine is insistently invited by Miguel to visit him in his lands in New Lago, a location nearby the border with Mexico. When MacPherson arrives in the town, he does not find his friend and he gets no information from the locals about Miguel. Sooner he realizes that the CEO of Halicorp (a branch of Halliburton?) and vigilante, Rhodes (Gary Cole), is buying cheap lands, giving infrastructure, constructing buildings, housing and facilities using slave labor from the needy Mexicans and making lots of money. When MacPherson finds that his family and friend have been executed by Rhodes, he promises to bring hell to God's land.

The first point that calls the attention in "Conspiracy" is the weight of Val Kilmer, almost obese; the former handsome actor is impressively fat. The plot about "friend that visits a missing friend and seeks revenge" has no originality, and a couple of days ago I saw "Missionary Man" that has a very similar story. The only difference is the shallow political connotation and speech in the characters and situations. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Unconvincing and boring

[aventer-1 · 4/10 · 13 March 2008]

Basic plot: a colorful person finds himself presented with a conspiracy involving the disappearance of a friend. Been done many times and can be very entertaining. But this is not "Bad Day at Black Rock"! First of all, Kilmer is clearly too old to play a crack marine. And he is seriously overweight and stiff. He comes across as grumpy rather than sinister. The setting is just as unconvincing: Supposedly this is a new town being built in the middle of nowhere using cheap Mexican labor. Yet many of the buildings are wild west era in style. Its obviously a generic western movie set, possibly located on Kilmer's own ranch. A 19th century "Dance Hall" is reached by a dirt street with a speed limit sign stuck in the earth, yet its flat as an airport runway. And its not a revitalized ghost town either. Everything is new, as though they just finished shooting an episode of Bonanza. Only the horse trough is missing. The small cast is comprised of stock characters: a young snotty cop who seems to be the entire police department, a beautiful girl running a dollar store with a precious little daughter, naturally terrified of telling the truth. She runs a lending library...with books! No vcrs, no dvds in this town although they have cable TV. Who thinks this stuff up? You are expected to suspend disbelief for dramas but when one anachronism is piled upon another goof on top of a plot hole, its difficult to take the story seriously. And the predictable story grinds on and on like a celluloid glacier. Go to the loo or make coffee, you wont miss anything. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction Kilmers career is taking as he is capable of much better. If you like daffy plots, watch a Steven Segal movie: at least they are entertaining.

Shane with a bit of Cat Ballou

[jsorenson777 · 7/10 · 28 June 2008]

The good guys are good and the bad guys are real bad. Val Kilmer plays a one-legged Billy Jack in a nice twist on a story that will continue forever. Former special forces bad-ass who doesn't want to fight no-more gets roped into an evil environment (with a Dick Cheney clone as Darth Vader) and he finally gets pushed a little too far. He moves fast invisibly "Like a ghost" - with one leg. Works as well here as in old-fashioned radio theater.

Low-budget and thus sparse but well done with myriad close-ups and all characters as caricatures. There is no pretense of realism and thus it works as a comic book on screen. Screenplay, direction, camera work and acting are all at least interesting.

Bad remake

[mikb333 · 3/10 · 12 March 2009]

Extremely bad remake of "Bad Day at Black Rock" starring Spencer Tracey.

If you liked this film I'd watch that. It's how a film like this can be done incredibly well.

Kilmer does his best I guess, but a remake of a great film deserves a better kind of care from the producers.

I don't know if this is part of the remake fad still going on or Val's slow return after the makeover but I don't rate this as even a blip on the film radar, I mean I like the idea but where was the tension, where was the intensity, everyone played a role and unfortunately that is all they did.

Pretty good for a straight to video

[gbigmak80 · 9/10 · 28 March 2008]

Low expectations are seldom met for films that go straight to video. This is an exception for me.

Kilmer (McPhearson) plays a troubled marine who is sought out by a war buddy and travels to Arizona to reunite. When McPhearson arrives, he realizes that the town and its people are acting very strange. He meets Rhodes (Cole), who basically runs the town, and gets less than welcomed. The suspense thickens as the movie goes, adding a clever character twist at the end.

Kilmer does a good job with the role, but maybe I'm bias because I've liked his movies for a while. His delivery is solid, from interaction with Esposito to rugged one-liners with the bad guys. I even didn't mind him looking a little bloated, because he was playing the washed up war vet.

The only trouble I had was the way he tried to sell the excessively used close up blank stare, meant to show McPhearson suffering from his past. It simply came off bored.

The pacing is spot on. You dive right in with a shocking opening scene and build up accordingly into the meat of the story. It is pleasantly predictable at the right times, yet your left guessing when you want to be.

The ending is where this one will lose some. It starts to do what that string of films that destroyed Steven Segal's career did. Movies often step out of themselves at the end and beat you over the head with a message. This one gets a little self righteous, but not to where I thought it brought things down.

It's not Rambo or Die Hard, but if you're in the mood for a rental with solid action and suspense, its worth the four or five bucks.

Well, at least people were cut up

[pageiv · 7/10 · 22 March 2008]

I never heard of this movie, and I am a big movie buff, until I saw a pop-up ad of all things. Needless to say they spared promotion money to pay Kilmer his paycheck.

First the good: There was lots of killing, which some was rather unique and bloody. There was a decent backstory in Iraq that could've been a movie itself. Then there was a folksy Western Town that I'd love to spend some time in.

Then the Bad: Okay, Hollywood is good at taking "ripped from the headlines" and making that into a "Law and Order" or cheesy movie, well here you get the movie. The bad guy is the head of a Halliburton type company, he hates Mexicans and likes paying them less than a "decent" wage. Though I don't know why the Mexicans just don't move on to another company.

Then there is a pitiful diatribe about Halliburton starting a war, to sell the Army guns, then making money to rebuild Iraq, to start a war with Mexico to repeat. If not for this absolutely retarded scene I'd give it 8/10.

Bad propaganda

[valdemar1516 · 1/10 · 27 March 2008]

It's kinda like Rambo, but instead of a cut Sly, it has a bloated, and practically sleepwalking Val Kilmer. And instead of real police baddies and the national guard, it's neo-Nazi western sheriffs and the extras from Blazing Saddles. Instead of Rambo resisting arrest, wigging out and escaping into the forest, MacPheron asks a question, drops a napkin and the whole town freaks, arrests him, pummels him in his jail cell and tries to eradicate all trace of him so that the denizens of God's country can feel safe under Rhode's wild west town/Haliburton occupation.

My favorite scene is when Val, sporting a black tank top, manages to kill several fully armed cowboys in the wide open spaces in broad daylight by lobbing kitchen knives sidearm. "Damn it; I can't see him. He's like a ghost!" Truly terrible, and it reduces the complex issues of war and illegal immigration to the most radically liberal propaganda points, depicting Arizonans as twisty mustached bigots who can't wait to kill Mexicans. Where's the anti-defamation league when you need them?

Seem familiar?

[dwpenn · 5/10 · 2 March 2012]

If you've seen Bad Day at Black Rock you've seen the better version of this.

A crippled veteran (Tracy a missing hand/Kilmer a missing leg) arrives in a closely knit and secretive older west style town with something to hide asking about a veteran Hispanic Hero (in Black Rock it was a Japanese who had a war hero son). In both the person searched for had been murdered. Both town's were isolated and off the main route.

One chief bad guy and a couple of henchmen and a whole town full of people looking away, staying uninvolved.

Val Kilmer - Spencer Tracy; Gary Cole - Robert Ryan; Jennifer Esposito - Ann Francis; Jay Jablonski - Dean Jagger; The wildflower at the grave; The empty/full hotel and reluctant clerk; the unavailable taxicab or rental car; Christopher Gehrman - Ernest Borgnine; Scott Burkett or David Frye (take your pick) - Lee Marvin; Harassment at lunchtime in diner ending in a man through screen door

Bowl of Chili - Bowl of Chili; Milk - Ketchup

Too many coincidences to not accept that this borrowed heavily from Bad Day At Black Rock and updated it. I'm not saying it's plagiarism, but someone surely saw and liked Bad Day and later took pen in hand and the gray matter replayed an impression left into a new story; honest mistake.

The only things missing were the jeep/car chase, Walter Brennan's role, the Molotov cocktail, and the telegrapher (which wouldn't be needed because of the era). The Conspiracy added more bad guys and didn't have a train, but they did have a carpool.

Another coincidence: Kilmer has made an extraordinary amount of movies in New Mexico; he must like it there, or perhaps even lives there??

Some of this town looked a lot like the Silverado set, I think I saw the saloon where Costner backed out and drew and fired at 90 degree angles at bad guys.

Disappointing

[mrozman-1 · 3/10 · 10 October 2021]

I like this genre and I like Val Kilmer but this movie was really bad.

More like Bad Day at Black Rick Meets Malone

[MJBlazin · 3/10 · 19 September 2021]

SPOILERS

The copy to Bad Day was obvious though I initially kept wondering about the equivalent of Spencer Tracy's bad arm. Commenters also threw in First Blood, but I think the second connection is the Burt Reynolds movie Malone. In First Blood, the sheriff was the instigator. Malone features the right wing businessperson with delusions of grandeur buying up the town and creating an army. The jail scene where Cole recounts his investigation of Kilmer's past and recruiting pitch is more Malone. In Bad Day, Sturges made Tracy a complete mystery. For the final scene, the source looked closer to Magnificent Seven ending than anything in the previous two homages. Some prior movie must have the book connection, but I cannot recall it. My guess is Watership Down gives you an idea of the violence ahead.

Val Kilmer is no Spencer Tracy or even Burt Reynolds in this movie. Gary Cole is no Robert Ryan or Cliff Robertson. Jennifer Esposito is no Anne Francis or even Cynthia Gibb from the Malone movie. The henchman is no Lee Marvin or Ernest Borgnine. The director is no John Sturges. If you don't try to make a good movie, why copy a great movie down to so many details? That's just laziness.

Not bad for a remake

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 14 July 2013]

First, let's get this straight: CONSPIRACY is a straightforward, modern-day remake of the Spencer Tracy classic, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK. Val Kilmer takes on the Tracy role, playing an outsider who arrivals in a small town to track down his missing friend. Turns out that everybody knows something, but nobody's saying anything.

I liked this film for the most part because it avoids clichés and it doesn't rely on cheesy action to propel the storyline. After the prologue, the first hour or so is engaging and suspenseful, building up a level of intrigue that most B-movies rarely attempt. There's an air of mystery hanging over the whole production and you actively want to find out what's going on.

Gradually, the story does fizzle out a bit as it progresses, and the last half hour resorts to the usual clichés: massive shoot-outs, showdowns in the desert, bad guys getting just deserts, and so on. The cast members are adequate for this production; Kilmer is at least trying as the former soldier suffering from PTSD, while Gary Cole can do this sinister villain stuff in his sleep by now.

The biggest disappointment is from Adam Marcus, the director. This is a guy who worked once since 1993's JASON GOES TO HELL, and his lack of experience shows. The dialogue scenes are passable, but the action sequences are hellishly bad. It appears they ran out of money for stunts or decent choreography because the action is all over the place and a real mess, sapping enjoyment at the showdown which should be a bit of glorious vengeance. Still, CONSPIRACY gets a lot of kudos from me for the first hour...

Val Kilmer beats up racist scum

[krachtm · 5/10 · 17 March 2013]

The plot: A former marine, trying to find out what happened to his friend, runs up against racist vigilantes.

I've never actually been that big of a Val Kilmer fan, but I'm willing to watch his movies. Unfortunately, as some people have already mentioned, this movie shares more than a few similarities to Steven Seagal's direct-to-video movies. It's got a left-leaning political message, an aging and out-of-shape movie star, and some truly awful dialogue.

I'm not going to lie. This is not a good movie. It's completely lacking in subtlety, one of the characters goes on a long political rant in the middle of the movie, and the fight choreography was not very impressive. However, I agree with the politics, I like Gary Cole, and I guess I'm a sucker for these cheesy direct-to-video movies. I'm willing to overlook a lot of things as long as I don't get bored.

I can't really recommend this movie to other people, but I found it a lot more tolerable than most reviewers. If you're a liberal, you're looking to waste 90 minutes, and you're a fan of Val Kilmer... well, maybe then you might want to see this movie, but you'd still have to be pretty desperate.

Good, Action and Drama

[Pratik112 · 7/10 · 8 March 2008]

The word "conspiracy" secret plan to commit a crime and this has been portrayed in the this good, action, drama, movie which is more, or, less, in a style of good western style.

A soldier in the US Marines is wounded during a raid on a small house, in a town in Iraq - he loses a limb and leaves the marines. He then constantly has nightmares about the incident but keeps on receiving calls from a friend of his asking him for help in a town named New Lago. Eventually, he decides to go.

Val Kilmer, after a long time, has made a come back and this time in an action, drama, movie genre. The settings of the movie are those of a typical western town and people wearing cowboy hats but that is a part of the set and it suits it very much.

Eeventhough, the movie does contain some nudity and bloody scenes, it is one that is worthwhile to watch.

This film is a shameless rip-off!!!

[hnic_68 · 1/10 · 26 March 2008]

Director Adam Marcus and his co-writer Debra Sullivan should be sued for the shameless way they have STOLEN the plot of John Sturges' 1955 film Bad Day at Black Rock, and turned it into this mediocre garbage. I'm all for films that pay homage and draw inspiration from other movies, but this is a rip-off, plain and simple. If you were to remove everything that was lifted directly from Bad Day at Black Rock (as well as the stuff "borrowed" from First Blood), you would have a movie that only runs about 13 minutes. To make matters worse, this film is sub-par mediocrity at best. It would be one thing if Marcus had a modicum of talent, and could at least make it seem like this was not a total act of cinematic plagiarism, but he can't even do that.

actually very good

[biffertron · 8/10 · 25 January 2009]

oh dear, it seems that quite a few gung ho Americans don't like films that point out the way big companies thrive on war and make lots of money out of it by supplying the goods to make war possible and then make even more money by rebuilding the mess they made.

Don't let their innate bias put you off watching this film as it is a actually pretty good (apart from the ending 5 minutes which looked suspiciously like the studio waded in and made the director make a Segal / Van Damme type over the top conclusion). We actually rented the film because we thought it would be good stupid fun like a Segal film with lots of Saturday night 'whizzbangpoppery' but there is a lot more to it than that - I was starting to say that it reminded me a fair bit of a classic Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western when lo and behold! - turns out the name of the town is Lago - the same name as in High Plains Drifter!! Someone with enough intelligence and respect (writer or Director?) to sneakily name check a reference has got much more going on than the people who have dismissed the film cos they don't like the politics.

So my advice is definitely worth renting - if you are a fan of thoughtful action films and like those classic Clint westerns cos this is a modern cousin of them. Enjoy

made me think

[staceyjoyce1224 · 7/10 · 24 September 2008]

I think a lot of us are being too harsh! I thought Val Kilmer did a great job. He came off depressed because his character WAS depressed: trying to integrate back into society after going through what he did would be unimaginable, and even worse when suffering from PTSD. He seems distracted because he is constantly fighting old battles in his head. I thought when he was being intimidated by the evil Rhodes in the diner his attitude was perfect: This is NOTHING compared to situations he's been through and Rhodes does not even matter to him. Yes, the plot was a bit predictable but wasn't it just oh so satisfying when he cuts off the disgusting E.B.'s fingers and shoots out his knee? And I think this story does have political significance. I'm Canadian but it still deeply disturbs me to ponder how companies like Halliburton make their billions. I agree with others who say that this movie most likely lost some of its lustre in the editing room. Another element I didn't care for was the undercover deputy. It just didn't quite come off quite right and I would have preferred MacPherson to kick ass by himself. All in all I am willing to overlook all that because of Val's intriguing performance. I don't think he half-assed it at all, in fact I think he hit the character right on the head.

anti-white racist ripoff of "Nowhere to Run"

[rfant01 · 1/10 · 18 March 2013]

A horrible racist anti-white ripoff of Jean-Claude Van Damme & Rosanna Arquette's 1993 "Nowhere to Run" where (in this movie) all whites are evil murdering slavers. It claims somehow a single business man started the whole Iraq war just to sale bombs & "somehow" knew he would get paid to rebuild the country after. He's suppose to be some kind of neo-nazi extremist, "enslaving" Mexicans, by giving them jobs in America, yet the same guy doesn't want any Mexicans in America (????). A total work of racist crap fiction with absolutely no basis in reality. I'll be keeping a watch out for this writer, as well as the director & producer so as not to wast any money on any of there movies!

Calling this a bad movie would be a compliment.

[qormi · 1/10 · 16 March 2012]

Val Kilmer sleep walks through this film as if he's just lost his best friend. He is so portly that this movie would resemble a spaghetti western where the hero ate all of the spaghetti. There is even a nude scene where Kilmer, encased in hairless blubber, is laid out on a tile floor naked. Never before have I seen such phony fight scenes. Bad guys rush Kilmer but are mysteriously thrown to the ground by a telekinetic force. This happens over and over again. The overweight hero walks into town and speaks to the semi attractive woman at the "lending" library. Why not just "library"? Don't all libraries imply the word "lending" without saying it? Anyway, this woman practically throws her back out and makes ridiculous facial contortions as she flirts shamelessly with our corpulent hero. He takes it all in stride, as if it happens all the time; his face never deviating from a depressing scowl. I would have thought he'd enter the sandwich shop or the nearest deli before looking for a book. And the entire movie looks as if it were shot with a video camera; it probably was. Pathetic.

WOW What A Bad Movie

[Mamou317 · 2/10 · 23 July 2008]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was HIGHLY disappointed by the acting, especially from Val Kilmer....he's a much better actor than the job he does in this movie.

I was also disappointed in the so-called special effects they had in this movie. To me, this movie looked like a garbage low-budget 80s flick that we can definitely live without.

I think this movie even gives small, corrupt, towns a bad name because the acting was so bad in it, lol. I honestly can't recall a worse movie, acting-wise, than this one since this movie was supposed to be a serious movie.

I just want to know what was going through Val Kilmer's mind when he accepted this role. He's far too talented to lower his standards so much....at least I thought so.