I watched The Conspirator yesterday. Not sure what to think about it. On one hand it's a very well-crafted film. The performances were top-notch all around, particularly from James McAvoy and Robin Wright, and some of the set decoration was stunning (I'm thinking of the theatre scenes early on in particular).
Redford has taken a lot of liberties with the source material though. He really didn't have to because the real story is impressive enough. His version is bordering on historical revisionism. For instance, the picture of John Wilkes Booth didn't belong to Mary Surratt's daughter - it belonged to Mary Surratt herself. And she definitely knew Booth personally. He went to see her four times the same day he assassinated Lincoln. The judge didn't overrule the jury's unanimous decision just to see her hang either. They all found her guilty as charged. Which she most certainly was. There are several similar details throughout the film that have been deliberately altered to fit within Redford's main thesis, which is that Surratt wasn't given a fair trial (which might or might not have been the case).
I have to say, if I were to make a film depicting how evidence are being ignored and altered within the justice system, I'd make it my number one priority not to commit the same mistake myself.
