Conspiracy Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
A seasoned senior enlisted special operations (spec ops) United States Marine is wounded during combat operations in Iraq. He is retired from the Marine Corps and visits a friend on a ranch in the south west. When he arrives he discovers his friend has disappeared and no one will even admit to knowing of him.
| Val Kilmer | |
| Gary Cole | Rhodes |
| Jennifer Esposito | Joanna |
| Jay Jablonski | Deputy Foster |
| Greg Serano | Miguel Silva |
| Stacy Marie Warden | Carly |
| Christopher Gehrman | E.B. |
| Bob Rumnock | Sherrif Bock |
| Steve Pena | Francisco |
| Anthony Jordan Atler | Reinol |
| Keanu Briones | Juan Miguel |
| Scott Burkett | Deputy Jefferson |
| Burly Cain | Bodyguard Cowboy |
| Reynaldo Cantu | General |
| Tone Forrest | Beggar |
| Marcus Adams |
4.90 out of 10 (819 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Unconvincing and boring
posted on 23 Jul 2009Basic 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.
Utter Drivel.
posted on 07 Jul 2009This film is a waste of celluloid. The storyline is horrible and the action is even worse. Val Kilmer is in no shape to be doing action movies anymore. He's gotten fat and he looks plain horrible on screen. I actually laughed out loud when I saw him at the beginning of the movie playing "dress up" as a Marine special forces soldier. The man could barely walk with the spare tire he's carrying around.This movie is so terrible, so awful, it is just unbelievably bad. I mean c'mon. A major defense contractor who is making billions of dollars a year is going to go to some BFE place in Arizona and start killing Mexicans to create a "pure" America. This same guy who supposedly has connections out the wazoo and could easily hire ex-mercs instead hires town flunkies to do his dirty work? And to top it off, when you are killing whole "nations", you do not have time to be the head of some ridiculous "vigilante" border patrol group (IMHO this movie actually makes some sick fun of the fact that patrolling of the borders by vigilantes is actually happening to some extent).The director should be slapped around, kicked in the balls, and dumped south of the border without his passport this movie is so terrible.Val Kilmer also needs to stay away from action flicks until he loses the weight and gets back into shape again. I'm sorry Val, you looked awful.
I was wondering....
posted on 19 Jun 2009Did this movie ever show in theaters, or was it straight to DVD? I don't remember seeing it advertised.As for the movie itself: BAD...Not BAD in the Plan 9 from Outer Space context....just plain BAD. Val Kilmer looks like hell, the rest of the cast was terrible, the writing and direction are laughable, and the editing and photography are sloppy and borderline amateurish(in one scene, a boom mic is clearly visible, which I found mildly amusing). About a third of the way through this movie, I found that I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.I also found the leftist messages in this movie (ie, people who oppose illegal immigration are, by definition, racist bigots) hackneyed and almost self-parodying--not to mention completely wrong.I wasted 90 minutes of my life on this piece of crap, but what really pisses me off is that there was no one standing in the way of this movie's release. At some point, couldn't someone have stood up and said, "Guys! We've got nothing here!"
Bad remake
posted on 15 Jun 2009Extremely 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.
Good, Action and Drama
posted on 07 Jun 2009The 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.
A watchable film, but nothing that hasn't already been done
posted on 30 May 2009When I read the plot outline for this film I was expecting more of an action thriller, but all I got was a film that was far too similar to Walking Tall. The story line was far too clichéd, and in no way gripped me, at times I felt I was watching merely for the sake of watching. However, I thought Kilmer was surprisingly good as MacPherson, quite clearly the best actor on show and I thought he was somewhat better than the script, although physically I don't think he pulled off being a marine all that well. You would have thought he'd have worked out a little before-hand to maybe try and gain the physique that remotely resembled a member of the armed forces, he didn't have to get back to his Batman days, but he could have at least toned up the edges. Some of the hand to hand combat scenes were also a little rough around the edges with Kilmer seeming a little uncomfortable, and the in the other scenes you could see quite clearly that it was a stunt double. Gary Cole again plays a role we are all too familiar seeing him in, and by all means he does it justice.All in all, a distinctly average film that provides no real surprises from start to finish. If you have a spare 90 minutes (and it really had best be a spare 90 minutes, because if you sit down expecting this to be any better than Walking Tall you will be largely disappointed) then it's worth a watch, if only for the commendable portrayal of PTSD by Kilmer in the earlier scenes.***** 5/10 *****
Think Road House meets Billy Jack...but not in a good way
posted on 26 May 2009This 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.
Fun straight-to-DVD movie
posted on 04 Apr 2009It must be said, Kilmer is not at his career zenith here. He's older, wider, wrinkly-er...he let himself go. You can see him reading his lines in a few places. You get the feeling he thought of this project as just another paycheck, which is a shame.So when I say the movie's a fun take on the classic revenge flick, it is in spite of a bloated Val and a pressed-for-footage editor (more on that below.) Gary Cole and lackeys have a great time playing their own grown-up version of "cowboys and indians" with deathly consequences. Cole's turn as an avaricious warmonger with designs for a pure America is effectively disturbing while being simultaneously hilarious: he's building his own Wild West Town where he gets to call all the shots, literally. And Bob Rumnock is wildly funny as the cowardly Sheriff Bock.What's a shame is that you can see real moments of inspiration interspersed between some very unfortunate cuts. The hat exchange in the diner was hilarious, but the three-minute bus trip at the top was useless. The scene at the hotel desk with the copier was really well-timed and very funny. But then there's twenty seconds of Val staring down the road at a departing truck. Why? Maybe the editor needed to make time, the producer had a vendetta against a day-player, or the studio wanted more blood and less talking. Maybe all three. A friend slipped me some footage of the director's cut, and lemme say Sony released the wrong version. Kilmer even managed to look good in a few of those scenes. Same footage, same Kilmer, better pace, better story-telling.As released though, Conspiracy is still a sweet little fable, classic in plot with modern relevance, combining action & daring-do with subtle humor and a few genuine surprises. Plus nudity!
I wish I could give it negative stars
posted on 27 Mar 2009I watched Conspiracy last night, and wanted my hour and half back. Before going into the plot, I fould myself cheering for the "bad guys" to win, since I cared not for the "good guy" and not really caring that he could die or be hurt. I thought the "betrayal" of the police officer was stupid and I could see it coming a mile away. The villains were over the top and were not slightly sympathetic. Plotwise, this was a pure propaganda piece for the Hollywood Left, and the leftists out there. If you don't support illegals in America and hate American business, you are a bigoted murderer. Such a simple plot should be seen through by everyone, but I noticed a number of reviewers were taken in by the propaganda. It is not the fact that this movie would have been produced by Goebbels himself that makes it bad, it is the fact that Goebbels would be embarrassed to put his name to it as an example of ametueristic propaganda. Following these black marks, any objective person would reject the message of the movie itself. It clearly was made to change people over to the addled liberal viewpoint, and in keeping with their only method of conversion, doesn't use facts or dicta to do so. Their opponents are shown to be wholly reprehensible people, and the poor man's Eva Menedes (Jennifer Esposito) explains that America is horrible and its greatest soldier must bring it down. Utter rubbish, and a purely emotional plea. The ONLY redeemed quality occurs in the first five minutes of the movie. Alesia Riabenkova's breasts are quite stunning, and she is a very beautiful woman. Her body is the only reason this movie deserves a positive star rating (and the fact that IMDb doesn't let you put them up there).
WOW What A Bad Movie
posted on 07 Mar 2009This 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.
Good movie... sort of. Felt like it was missing someone to say no
posted on 11 Feb 2009OK, I loved Val in the movie, but there were so many continuity problems it got rather stupid. I liked the war vet toughie who gets a call to help a friend. His character played well with what he had. The problem was, the movie ran from his story of a missing friend to a poorly constructed action movie.The filming was good, the acting was mostly good. But the plot/action devolves into into the unbelievable halfway through.I personally write this one off to the writers strike.The action sequences were some of the worst that actually had a budget that I've ever seen, beyond unbelievable. Like halfway through they stopped reading their own plans aloud.Worth watching? yes, if cheap. Sorry guys, nice try!
Bringing Hell to God's Land
posted on 03 Feb 2009During 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
Utter, utter bilge. Who puts up the money for this garbage?
posted on 03 Feb 2009I am glad someone else picked up the Bad Day at Black Rock reference. This IS a direct rip-off of that movie (and some others).Waste none of your precious life watching this lifeless amateur nonsense. It lacks a single redeeming feature; acting - phoned in (V.K. is absolutely wooden), script - risible, direction - leaden, plot - overdone, production - cheap.Instead, treat yourself, go and buy / rent Bad Day At Black Rock, and watch how a REAL movie was made. Or the A-Team, for something that doesn't take itself seriously and will at least give you a chuckle.But like other posters, I just feel that I've wasted 90 mins of my life watching this.
Good Fun Action with a Brain Behind It
posted on 18 Jan 2009I got to see an early sneak of this little gem. A throw back to the more thoughtful movies of the '60's, so if you've got an MTV attention span, take a deep breath. This movie has a lot to say and says it well. Val Kilmer hearkens back to the Clint Eastween "Man With No Name" films. Not a lot to say, but you can read everything in his eyes.The direction moves seamlessly back and forth from thoughtful drama to intense action. Jennifer Esposito, refreshingly cast differently as "the Mom" (not that she's not still smoking hot) and the underrated and extremely talented Gary Cole, shine. In fact the entire cast (mostly unknowns) give an authenticity to a sleepy Arizona Border Town.Well directed, written and acted, I highly recommend this taught action/drama. Grab the popcorn, the family (all generations - okay maybe not the kids under 12) and fire up the DVD player, you won't be disappointed.
Waste of time
posted on 21 Dec 2008I was very curious about this movie, because it contained two names: val kilmer and jennifer esposito. but after the first 20minutes i was very sad: this movie is a waste of time. really. now if u wonder why i watched it until the end (cause i did), that has only one reason: jennifer esposito. she is a way more better actress than val kilmer ever be. his acting is awful, and he can't carry the movie. this can only be done by jennifer esposito, who plays kilmers love interest...sadly she has not so many scenes. so i only give this movie 3 out of 10, which is the best i can do.. it's a waste of time, and it's boring, sometimes even ridiculous.
actually very good
posted on 07 Dec 2008oh 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
posted on 27 Nov 2008I 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.
Abysmal "adaptation" of 'Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)'
posted on 18 Oct 2008I hope you'll trust my opinion and won't waste any time or money on this complete failure of a film! These are some of the things that you would regret to have learned at your own cost if you'll still watch it: Val Kilmer and Jennifer Esposito prove again that they don't know much about acting.Gary Cole shows his solid but below average performance as always. He would do better if he could, but can he be blamed if nobody has taught him how? He should stick to TV or become vice president.Does Adam Marcus understand that the director MAKES the movie and the writer MAKES the story for it? Maybe that concept should be explained to him in greater detail. Probably Steven Seagal would be the best man to do it. These guys could learn so much from each other! Doees Hollywood really has so much capital and resources to waste? Apparently it does!
waste of time
posted on 10 Oct 2008this 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
a truly beautiful film - other viewers "reviews" are however deeply disturbing
posted on 30 Aug 2009There seems to be 2 totally different viewpoints in the US. One, that you might call the viewpoint of the lackey and the other that of decency, often referred to as being "socialist" or "lefty". The latter viewpoint does not embrace competition between human beings, where the whole point is to break the spirit of your fellow man, so that he loses the competition. In fact, the decent viewpoint is never to compete with others and instead only compete with yourself for perfection, regardless of what other men or women are doing. The doings of others is then only interesting, when it is a reminder of your own imperfection, such as, for instance, the heroism of the handicapped and downtrodden who do not give up on living decently, which always brings a decent man to shame, who is not handicapped in any way. The doings of the others, the rich of birth and their lackeys, who are properly portrayed in this film as the villains, is instead a reminder for the decent man, that there is still much to be done. This is an anti-American film, if "americanism" means glorifying business and treat market-economy as if it was a gospel and the measure for all things good. Business-men never invented anything but their money could, so far, always buy the inventors, such as the Germans being bought to land a human being on the moon and all that has followed since. But maybe will the time come when the inventors will not let themselves be bought... Let's hope so and let then the only important fight begin, which sadly, judging from some of the reviews on this film, will be necessary.