Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Robert Redford's THE CONSPIRATOR Trailer Looks Rather Promising...

Merrick here...
We've mentioned the Robert Redford-directed THE CONSPIRATOR a few times in the past (HERE and HERE, for example), now we can see the trailer for the Lincoln assassination thriller which opens in April (website HERE) via the folks over at Yahoo.  
The picture stars Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood, Justin Long, Alexis Bledel, and Charles Xavier-to-be James McAvoy, and more. 
Take a look.  
— follow Merrick on Twitter ! ---
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST


    by xega


  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:28 a.m. CST

    You missed half the cast.

    by Mostholy

    Colm Meaney, Tom Wilkinson, and Danny Huston are all in that trailer also. And imdb informs me it's also got Norman Reedus, Stephen Root, and James Badge Dale.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Great, so the hippie liberals would now have us think...

    by googamooga

    Of Lincoln's murderers as some sort of half-assed noble hero martyrs? Pass.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST

    The Constipator

    by DarfurOnTheRocks2

    Looks like a taut thriller :)

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Fort Red Border

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    A Turnip Cures Elvis.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST


    by logjam

    you're a partisan idiot. go back to your cave. it's a good flick, saw it last week. solid, sometimes slow-paced, but very well-researched and thoughtful.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Looks Interesting

    by tsfogg

    I can't promise I'll be there to see it in the theatre, but I'll definitely check it out on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    John Surratt was a toolbag

    by BetaRayBill07

    Ran all over Europe after the assassination, caught, tried in US, found innocent only because the public furor over it all had run out, and then tried his hardest to profit from it all. Tool. This does look good though. Robin Wright is generally underrated. Although Mrs. Surratt by all accounts was mostly inconsolable from her arrest to the hanging. Didn't see any of that here.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Is nothing sacred?

    by corplhicks

    Can't we even sleep over this?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Didn't Nicolas Cage already get to the bottom of this?

    by jimmy_009

    I see a modern day parallel to 9/11/Guantanamo Bay/Iraq here. Not that Redford would be trying to make a point or anything here...

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:53 a.m. CST


    by angel_svn

    Quote: "A military trial of civilians is an atrocity." Actually, you stupid ass Robert Redford, a U.S. citizen in a U.S. military is an atrocity. Well-researched my ass. Political idiocy is more like it.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 10:57 a.m. CST


    by deelzbub

    constipator! Read it that way as well! humour!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    Thank Christ Oliver Stone's not directing it!

    by Jeff Myers

    Thank Christ Oliver Stone's not directing it! He'd probably end up announcing that Susan Boyle had killed him.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    @googamooga... Sort of...

    by Iudex

    It's Liberal Hippies giving a historical focal point to how we are treating the 9/11 conspirators and AQ in Gitmo. If we could give the Lincoln assassination conspirators a fair trial in 1865, we should be able to do the same in 2011... At least, knowing Reford, is what I assume is his motivation. Being Redford we cannot expect a movie like this to be read at face value.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:02 a.m. CST


    by googamooga

    Try again, I am a democrat who voted for Obama, you fucktard. This looked interesting until they started going down the 'sympathy for the conspirators' route.

  • I mean that. This is great news. Control the past, control the future, motherfuckazzz!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Mary Surratt

    by dukeroberts

    I don't think it's so much about sympathy for the conspirators as it is looking at Mary Surratt's conviction in particular. There have always been questions about how much she knew and when she knew it. I doubt that the movie will look kindly on John Wilkes Booth, George Atzerodt, Lewis Powell and apparently it will not look good on John Surratt. If Redford is intending to use this as some kind of allegory, I will decline to accept that message and watch it at face value and judge it solely on those merits. It looks good. I still want to see Manhunt brought to the screen though, with Jude Law as John Wilkes Booth.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Oliver Stoned/Robert REDford, what's the difference?

    by Fandude7

    The difference might be that RED-ford's version will probably not contain a mindboggling, hashish induced dream sequence. Despite Oliver Stone hobnobbing with leftist dictators; Fidel Castro, Chavez, Danny Ortega he sometimes manages to make a decent flick, the 9/11 movie he made a couple or 3 years ago.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST


    by Fletch Gannon

    I agree with'll definitely have a bent to it but I'll watch it anyway just because I'm interested in the subject matter, not necessarily the point of view that it will try to push. It is a FICTIONAL account of what happened so everyone should be mindful of that before passing judgment.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:08 p.m. CST

    True story...

    by lprothro

    At first glance I thought this said "The Constipator". Given the slow movement of most of Redford's films, it would have been strangely apropo.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    What is it about politics...

    by Lobanhaki2

    ...that turns some people into obnoxious spewers of hateful slogans? The word revisionist seems to be employed sometimes to mean "history we don't like". I mean, I told somebody that 10th amendment nullification, "states rights", and threats of secession were the common talk of Democrats, pre-civil war, and he called it exactly that, revisionist history. That, despite the fact that it was simply the truth about what people were saying, truth I heard about by recall of what I read in the history books. All too much politics these days is conducted on the right by way of phrasing meant to deny legitimacy to laws, candidates, and arguments they don't like. If a ruling isn't liked, it gets called "judicial activism." If somebody gets elected who they don't like, they pretend like they got elected by voter fraud, or that they weren't born in this country. If somebody confronts them with the consensus research of the scientific community, they call it "junk science". If they get confronted by news stories they don't like, it's "media bias." And if somebody confronts them with history they're not aware of, if they don't like that history, it's "revisionist history" Long story short, all too many on the Right want to redefined what's right and wrong to fit their party's agenda, rather than let what's right and wrong define the party's agenda instead. That is why you get dumbasses like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and John Boehner. That is why you get nuts like Bachmann, like Glenn Beck, like G. Gordon Liddy. That is why you get scum like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, who sell their viewers on policies that benefit the millionaire they are more than the working and middle class people their audiences are. You get them because when people can redefine reality to suit their own vision of the world, accountability, sanity, and intelligence go out the window. The Right in this country need to acknowledge that they can be wrong. They need to realize that they cannot talk a mistake into being a success, or a lie into being the truth.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    This editorial comment by lobanhaki2 has been brought to you by:


    MARXIES, the cereal everyone MUST share!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Stone makes lefty polemics tweakers, punks and paranoids.


    Redford makes them for bougie old white ladies who soothe their consciences by telling themselves they agree with liberal causes and ideas. In other words, they both suck. CHOPPED.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    What is the time period covered in Spielberg's Lincoln?

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Does it end with the assassination?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Lincoln assassination by way of Bush/Cheney

    by BoRock_A_Boomer


  • Jan. 27, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    You know what this film needs more of?

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Space Jockeys.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST


    by MagnoliAB

    You fed directly into lobanhaki's entire point. Nice one....

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST




  • Jan. 27, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Please don't put Stone and Redford in the same

    by Samuel Fulmer

    sentence. Maybe one guy is past his directing prime (Stone), but at least he had one. Redford only jumped to directing as his face began to sag and has directed mostly garbage (Bagger Vance! Horse Whisperer! Mildago Bean Bag Toss!). Something like Stone's The Hand is more believable than Redford's best (Ordinary People, Quiz Show/which Redford basically stole directing duties from Soderbergh).

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Mary Surratt_does_not_exist_in_this_dojo

    by good sense_does_not_exist_in_this_dojo

    So...what do we have here...yet another Hollywood attempt to make a film that will act as a thinly veiled, pseudo-critique of the last ten years under THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHO WAS SATAN PERSONIFIED, just like the hit films Redacted, Valley of Elah, Green Zone, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum...did... or a relatively even-handed, centrist attempt to show history as it was with only a few scenes of left-wing pandering thrown in so that Redford doesn't get his Sundance card revoked? I dunno. Guy hasn't been a solid director for years. And yes, that Oscar for Ordinary People was a fetishistic waste when Raging Bull clearly should have won...

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2 p.m. CST


    by MegaBeth

    You decry partisianship all the while defending your own partisianship. You can't have it both ways. Attack the idiots who listen to Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc. all you want. Yet leave out the idiots who listen to Maddow, Olberman, etc. You do that because they are people you listen to. Liberals and Conservatives are alike more than they are different. Neither side wants to listen to the other. If a conservative believes in something, they are stupid sheep. If a liberal believes in something they are an evolved caring human being. It is all just so ponderous and futile.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST



    You a chick?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST

    At least I hope you're a chick, megabeth.


    I'm dying for some crazy Conservo strange. My sex life has taken a turn for the mind-numblingly normal ever since I sent Annie Coulter packing for her constant Nicorette chomping.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST


    by Nick

    I consider myself a liberal but I couldn't agree with you more. It reminds me of the adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Ghandi wanted to free India from the British but you didn't see him trying to assassinate the Prime Minister or blow up buses of innocent school children. I don't think I like what this movie might be implying. Redford does have the right to make it but I too have the right to question it. That's what our forefathers intended by writing the Constitution after all.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:37 p.m. CST


    by eustisclay

    ...thanks, I really get a kick when I see your login, I know I'm either gonna get some common sense or(more likely) some good laughs. I'm gonna nominate you as MVT(alkbacker) of 2011.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST


    by dukeroberts

    Agreed. Liberals accuse people like me of being close-minded, but are just as close-minded in their own views and ideals. Yes. I said "ideals". Despite the fact that I disagree with their thought processes, Liberals do have ideals of their own. I just do not subscribe to them. And the only Liberals I can't stand are overbearing lefty politicians, pundits and Hollywood actors, because that is all I know of them. In more down to earth ways, my three closest friends are all Liberals and I don't agree with them on shit.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Someone's gotta keep these bastards in line.


    Sure isn't Harry. He's too busy fondling toys and writing petitions to save Disneyland furries and/or going to the hospital. But we love the big guy!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:47 p.m. CST

    @ Megabeth, false equivalency

    by RoShamPoe

    While I won't argue against a partisan argument in lobanhaki2 only including Republican mouthpieces, I think you're dead wrong on equivocating someone like Glenn Beck with Kieth Olbermann. That's not to say that Olbermann hasn't said some half-baked things, I'm sure he has. If you put anyone on tv for that many hours, some nonsense will most certainly come out. The difference is that Beck spews nonsense nightly. Google 10 random videos by both and see what you come up with. I'd argue any well adjusted human being would see a huge gap between the sanity of the two. A better scapegoat for left nonsense is Ed Shultz. Though most of us already think he's a moron. Any decent moderate non-sheep republican would decry their idiots rather than divert the attention. But I guess there aren't many of those left, huh?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Ed Schultz is a Republican wolf in Dem sheep's clothing.


    Tried to run for Congress as a GOPer in the 90s. FACT. He's a Manchurian Candidate, a Howard Campbell, mucking up the left's shit from the inside. GO EDDIE GO!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:02 p.m. CST



    False equivalency ... or false dawn?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Well put

    by jimmy_009

    I don't normally post on politics because what's the point?... but everything you just said is why I'm a reformed Republican. I was tired of being in the party of idiots, weirdos, liars, deniers, and the willfully ignorant. People that are constantly complaining about something that they have no actual information about. I'm independent now and while I can see stupidity on both sides, it's so far out of wack right now that the right is a colossal joke, just spouting off whatever slogan or sleazy lie that they've been told to by whatever douchbag blowhard is on Fox News. That is not the Republican part I joined, but it's the one I left. Turn off Fox News and actually learn something idiots, because the left is %100 on about the right. I was in denial for quite a while, but I stepped back and saw just how much the right propaganda machine is making fools of all of you.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    sorry, well put lobanhaki2

    by jimmy_009

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    megabeth, first:

    by Lobanhaki2

    Read more carefully. I don't decry partisanship or deny that I am one. What I decry is people using cheapshit tactics to try and cut off debate before their sacred cows can be gored by inconvenient facts or points of view. I've actually been around conservatives who take the effort to think, to consider the world from multiple points of view. I like those people. I'm not a religious watcher of Maddow, and I didn't watch Olbermann all the time. I don't rely on people to tell me my point of view. I have my debates with folks on the left as well as the right. But why are we drawing an equivalency between them? It's one thing to passionately expound one's opinions. But I never saw Olbermann or Maddow indulge the kind of borderline paranoid schizophrenia that Beck does. They know one thing: they fudge the facts too much, get too sloppy, and somebody will call them on it. Beck? Last night, he was carrying around a bunny. Then he picked up a chainsaw and wondered aloud about using it on the bunny. He's talked about braining US Representatives with shovels, shooting people in the head, strangling Michael Moore, poisoning Nancy Pelosi. He's constantly trying to link the emphatically anti-communist Nazis and the Stalinists to the Democrats all at once, spinning conspiracies about the Tides foundation, and trying to link the Rockefellers to communism by the artwork on their buildings. The guy sells survivalist seed kits, pushes gold speculation and gold standards on people. He's actually claimed that FEMA is going to use a disaster as a pretense to turn itself into a secret government and cram people into camps for detainment, an idea that is so nutty that Martin Landau was given lines about it in the X-File movie to prove his character was more nuts than Fox Mulder. Just what has any liberal pundit done to match this level of paranoid delusion, or bizarre, violent fantasizing? Drawing equivalence between that and partisan punditry based on fact-based reporting is an act of intellectual laziness. Choppah- Yeah, call a person a Marxist. That way, you don't have to discuss reforming a fundamentally fucked-up financial system on the merits. The merits you'd obviously lose on, given what's happened. I can give people the links to articles, mainstream, regular news articles that smack down all those canards. I can show them that the market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going down during the period when the housing bubble was inflating. I can show that most lenders that were leading the pack barely had the CRA applying to them, and those institutions that issued subprime loans under that law had fewer defaults. I can show that the dark market (actual technical term) for derivatives was both largely unregulated by the federal government, and also was the source of much of the overleveraging, and a big reason why the market didn't curb the excesses of the housing market earlier. I can tell people why the market fell when Lehman Brothers collapsed, what was endangering the banks at that point. I can actually tell them what those toxic assets really were. You? You can call me a Marxist, because that's the standard way you try to end an argument over economics early, impugning the reputation of the opponent before they actually demonstrate they know more about capitalism than your sorry ass does. Somebody once told Truman to give his opponents hell. He replied that he'd tell them the truth, and they'd think it was hell. Well, Choppah, welcome to hell.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST

    music really helps dull trailers seem less dull. or does it?

    by stu_pickles

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:23 p.m. CST

    This latest lobanhaki2 rant has been brought to you by:


    STALIN-BRAND GULAG GOULASH. You'll go gaga for Gulag Goulash!

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    This latest the-choppah rant brought to you by:

    by Lobanhaki2

    a complete lack of imagination. Sorry, but is that the best response you've got? I guess you picked the wrong political blogger to pick a fight with.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST



    How about instead of being in a Party at all, just be independent, and agree or disagree with the issues on your own. Why the hell everything has to be separated into Parties is beyond me. Since both parties are wrong, it only makes sense to pick and choose and figure out what's good or bad. Instead, we have strict Parties, all-or-nothing, and fighting and bickering like each other are Nazi states.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    You're a political blogger, eh?


    FireDogLake, no doubt. How's your buddy Grover Norquist doing?

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST

    lobanhaki2: The free market made me wealthy.


    The principles of capitalism and free enterprise. Hard work. Tenacity. Grit. Perseverance. Opportunity. I did it the old-fucking-fashioned way. I can afford to spend all day up in this piece enlightening dogmatic fools like you. What excuse does a liberal blogger have posting elaborate arguments on the TB boards of AICN, though? Shouldn't you be looking for a job? Or at least trying to sell carbon-neutral, fair-trade, polar bear-friendly advertising space to the some trust-fund hippie running a hemp enema operation out of his daddy's basement in Berkeley? Your revolution is over, Moonbeam. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Lazy, bitching moonbats. All the same. CHOPPED.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST

    How many trade agreements have you negotiated, lobanhaki2?


    None, I'm sure. You know nothing about the practical application of political influence. You can hide behind your computer screen and spout abstract liberal boilerplate, but how about applying your precious and naive liberal dogma in the real world? It's impossible. You keep encouraging criminals and rogue states with nuclear intentions. See where that gets you. Keep coddling madmen and rapists, and keep encouraging anti-Semitic conspiracy theories with your insinuations of dark schemes in the banking sector. Fuckwit.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I agree Choppah, that's why...

    by jimmy_009

    ... I said I was now independent. So.. I guess we're in agreement there. I'm an independent who was formally a Republican but will never return. I won't be a part of a group that brought around near and real calamity with the power that it had and refuses to admit it was wrong -- and is actually blaming the current administration as if it had done anything REMOTELY as awful. The economy fiasco? Yeah that was my former party. The Iraq disaster? Yep, them too. And the whole time I sat there and spouted off the same support and denials Republicans are spouting off to this day. Tea Partiers, birthers, and all the people that shout socialism even though they have no idea what it actually means --- they all make me ashamed to be a part of a party that was at one point respectable. My biggest regret in my entire life was that I voted for George W. Bush not once but twice. That hangs over my head always when I think about the Iraq War and the economy in the shitter. The Republicans have brought about nothing but misery in the last decade. NOTHING. It would be one thing if they could admit it and try to improve, but instead they act like children. So yeah, I'm an independent. I actively try to AVOID shouting the company line for any company.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST

    jimmy_09, I agree with you that the GOP needs to admit mistakes.


    Such as: - Folding to liberal pressure to bail out and take majority ownership in many of the big banks. Nationalization is a liberal, statist thing to do. Just ask the Chinese, of whom our liberal friends are so envious. - Pursuing a neo-LIBERAL foreign policy in Iraq. How quickly the liberal media and their dull clones in the liberal blogosphere forget that "neo-conservatism" is merely what was first known as neo-LIBERALISM. These represent egregious derelictions of duty by our supposed conservative representatives in government. Bush and Cheney were essentially Stalinists, and you can get any more left than Stalin.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:40 p.m. CST



  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    I guess lobanhaki2 ran away.


    What of this "fight" I was promised? CHOPPED.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    In regards to the movie...

    by RasporangePants

    Saw it almost 3 months ago at the Savannah Film Fest. I thought it was boring as shit and was just your average run-of-the-mill historical drama. If I wasn't there with a friend, I would have left. The most entertaining part was recognizing the Savannah shooting locations and seeing some of my fellow SCAD students pop up every here and there as background characters.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    So in other words Choppah

    by jimmy_009

    You refuse to admit or choose to ignore the fact that Republicans actually fucked up the economy to begin with and got us into a pointless, devastating war. You would rather focus on how they had to work with the "other side" to try to fix their gigantic fuckups. And that's why they screwed up, because they didn't stick to their guns ENOUGH (because that was all working so well, let's magnify those policies!). You are delusional. Step back, friend. You are towing the company line and throwing around 'isms' because that's what people do when they are angry but don't actually have anything to say. Stalinist! Socialist! Nazi! You are just towing the party line, whatever it is, you'll repeat it.

  • it had been around since the verdict was first passed down and there is substantial evidence that there was a rush to judgement in the aftermath of the assassination regarding Mary Surratt. The most people could really prove was that the conspirators met at her boarding house. I fail to see the makings of a controversy here. looks like a fairly tame period piece to me. Besides, isn't Lincoln on the outs with Right Wingers these days? I figured anything that would make the "Great Centralizer" (as Thomas DiLorenzo put it in that idiotic and inexplicably popular screed he vomited out) look like a cackling tyrant and Booth and company look like noble heroes would be their thing.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to further get into politics...

    by jimmy_009

    ...on a movie site. It was nice to get that off my chest, and I'll just close by saying: have the balls to stop what you're doing and saying and have an objective, informed look around you.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Cant we just enjoy the film

    by unblinkingeye

    C'mon all of these "based on true events" flicks are not the whole story. Flicks like this, Glory, Patton, JFK, Thirteen Days, etc. are based on the actual events and persons involved but are not completely accurate. If you want facts then read a history book and make your own decisons. This is not a documentary (even though I just watched a great doc on the History Channel on the very same subject a couple of weeks ago, check it out). Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Bull Moose Party, whatever... Hollywood doesnt care about your politcal beliefs just that you are buying a ticket.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST



    Couldn't have said it better myself. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Only reason I'd see this?

    by Anna Valerious

    Toby Kebbell. I've been fangirling over him for quite a while, even though he's playing one of the most despised men in history. Which led me to make this gem- But for the record, I prefer him as Drake from "Sorcerer's Apprentice". and even more for the record, I will be supporting all the POTC films so Bruckheimer and Disney will make that London-set sequel with Chernabog.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Compelling! And casted the perfect prosecutor

    by kafka07

    I like Danny Hutson, when he's doing credible work, and not like the Wolverine movie. He's great in Children of Men and the HBO John Adams series.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    The Assasination of Abraham Lincoln...

    by fanboy71

    by the Coward John Wilkes Boothe

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Did you guys know?...

    by Tikidonkeypunch

    Lincolns killer ran from a theater to a warehouse and Kennedys killer ran from a warehouse to a theater.

  • Jan. 27, 2011, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Another TB...

    by Sithtastic

    aaaand another digression into the political morass. Is it just too much to ask that we recognize Robert Redford is hardly apolitical? I don't have to indulge in a needless FOX v. MSNBC shorthand-as-thought debate. I don't have to go completely off the reservation down non-sequitir lane. None of that is necessary. I just have to recognize that this story as allegory of today is disgusting and it would be simply better we just try to think about the Conspirator as more an over dramatization of the historical record then anything else (and no, that's not revisionism, it's simply telling the story from another POV).

  • Jan. 28, 2011, 9:56 a.m. CST

    by logjam

    Holy shit half of you people are so stupid. I've seen the movie. There's nothing political about it. Redford doesn't try to tie in Guantanamo with this. It's about a woman trying to cover for her deadbeat son. And it doesn't paint the assassins as "freedom fighters." No wonder we're so fucked, with kneejerk reactionaries like you fuckwits (googamooga).

  • Jan. 28, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Back and to the left

    by JacksParasites

    Conspiracy theorists fall on both sides of the political aisle, and there are just as many delusional JFK conspiracy nuts on the right as there are on the left. It's sad that people feel the need to let their imaginations run so wild because they can't imagine that one random crazy dude is capable of killing the president alone even when the president was out in public and the shooter didn't even escape justice. Shit happens. Even today, it wouldn't be that hard for a lone nut with nothing to lose to kill the president if they were so inclined.

  • Jan. 30, 2011, 7:22 a.m. CST

    "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

    by Smack_Teddy

    So is Ghandi meant to be a terrorist or a freedom fighter then? Because im pretty sure he wouldnt want to be labelled either. Also, no he didnt try to assinate leaders or blow up schoolbuses full of kids, but some of our soldiers acctually do that by accident in foreign countries you know...always by accident, certainly never intended mind...<p>Anyone who wouldnt fuckup a backwards cavewomans husband, rape her in front of him their her kids, burn their housedown and yell "real burly-man freedom bitches!" before going to sleep like a baby with a clear consciounce its for the best from the best ideological mindset we were born into must be a totally nancy-cunt right folks? I'm starting to feel genuinly sick of all these simpleton positions or arguments, as opposed to an adage with a clear simple context