Conspirator

I hate the word "dated", because it can only sensibly apply to a work in which the characters or plot don't reflect the era.

So, actually, what most of the internet educated IMDb users claim to be "dated" are often the only films not "dated". "Dated" means watching a movie about Wyatt Earp, and getting the feeling he has played video games instead of thinking about local events.

Here, we have a film that is definitely not dated. It deals with a handsome Communist spy who has to work his dealings around his personal life.

Robert Taylor's character is very credible, and multi dimensional. If this movie was made by one of the beavis and buttheads of today, he'd simply kill everyone who coughed when he told a lie. Yes, you're right. This would mean the world population would be zero humans within a month, and it makes no sense.

Here, in "Conspirator", he is a real person, and so is his wife, who is onto him. In dramatic style, they still want to work their relationship, and honestly, this is what people do, when they find something out about each other. Real people don't murder each other each time they find out a secret about each other.

We're shown early that the pace of the film skips over minor details, which modern writers deem so important. In one sense, some would say that "dates" this film, since it is more plot oriented, more Shakespeare than Tennessee Williams. Intricacies aren't explored as much. We're given the story line and the story, and the length of the movie allows for that.

Is it completely perfect? I don't think so. However, the characters are more credible for the time than people today can handle, so it probably isn't safe to show friends. People will have a problem with the iconoclastic attitude towards today's "everyone is a psychotic killer" philosophy.

This is as much a response to samhill5215's review of CONSPIRATOR as it is a review of the film itself. Sam Hill seems to think that paranoia about Soviet infiltration of the West was unjustified, even though around the same time this film was being made (1949) the Rosenbergs were selling nuclear secrets to the Russians and Philby was funneling intel to them from his perch over in England.

Sam wonders why Elizabeth Taylor's character -- who the film paints as being naive and apolitical -- would be rattled to discover that she'd married a Soviet spy. I wonder if Sam would be making the same observation if the time line were adjusted to World War II and Taylor had learned her husband was a Nazi.

I suppose it matters not to Sam that Mao and Stalin together killed approximately 94 million people.

94. Million.

Nine-four, Sam. Million. The number is beyond staggering. It defies belief.

Adolph Hitler, one of the most evil humans of the 20th century, was a piker by comparison.

But according to Sam, regardless of this kind of unprecedented barbarity, Liz's character was just a Silly Billy to care so much.

Unbelievable.

The movie itself is okay, but far from great. It's well photographed and professionally acted... the story is intriguing... but it all feels rather insubstantial, as if several important scenes were missing.

Perhaps it got butchered in the editing room.

Too bad. Like samhill's review.

While on vacation in England a young American woman (Elizabeth Taylor) meets and later marries a British military officer (Robert Taylor) who turns out to be a Soviet spy. He is too deeply in with the Soviets whose agents liked him better when he was single and instruct him to get rid of her. There is not much of a sense of peril generated, but the film develops a fair degree of tension when Elizabeth Taylor's character discovers the truth about her husband, as the Soviets warned him she would. The crux of the film seems to deal more with his emotional needs that conflict with his Marxist political ideals, though those ideals and the whole existence of being a spy and traitor to one cause while being coldly manipulated by agents of the other could have been done more convincingly (see The Spy Who Came In From The Cold) or one of Carol Reed's tortured espionage tinged films. Nonetheless, it's a pretty decent part for Robert Taylor while somewhat shortchanging Elizabeth's.

Excellent young adult performance by 18-year-old Elizabeth Taylor playing newlywed American living abroad whose soldier husband is up to no good: he's living a double life and is really a communist traitor! Underpopulated, underwritten melodrama does have one strong aspect: a surprisingly strong, spunky woman at the center of the story. Robert Taylor is solid as Taylor's 30-ish husband, but any psychological conflicts are not quick to come out (there is a tense duck-hunting scene where the couple runs into trouble, but it's just shucked off). Liz looks beautiful and gives a fairly complex portrayal here--her eyes glinting with suspicion and anger. The film isn't a classic--nor is it swill--but as a quickie product from MGM, it's probably better than it had to be. **1/2 from ****

Fans of early and obscure Elizabeth Taylor vehicles can't get much more obscure than this early cold-war drama set in 1949 London. As a Yank in postwar Britain, she meets and falls for another Taylor, Robert, dashing in his uniform. Once married, however, hubby grows secretive and borderline abusive, and is forever disappearing on mysterious nighttime errands. Playfully kibitzing, young Liz stumbles onto the truth that he's a Soviet operative, possibly the clumsiest and most careless ever. Orders come down that he must eliminate her.... About two-thirds of the way through, this tepid romance decides it's going to be a Suspicion-like thriller, and not a moment too soon. But it has its moments (the male Taylor covering his tracks as he takes the tube to an assignation, for instance) and reflects the rather restrained concerns of the British Empire in the wake of the Gouzenko defection in Ottawa in 1945.