Once again, the young actor JAMES McAVOY gives an earnest and altogether convincing portrait of a man assigned to be the defense lawyer for Mary Surratt, accused as one of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Since the whole story is told from his point of view, it emerges as a realistic depiction of how events might have unfolded, taking no firm stand on the innocence or guilt of the accused. As the nation mourns the sudden death of its leader taken from them just as the Civil War ended, we are told that justice must be swift to heal the wounds of the public and satisfy a thirst for revenge. It's that viewpoint that makes this film relevant today, in view of other controversial historical events, but first and foremost the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

One glaring quibble: Apparently, to fully immerse the viewer in this time of history and to suit the flavor of the grim tale, Redford has chosen to use very muted color photography so that this is almost a sepia tone experience. But do we have to be reminded so flagrantly that this was the candlelit era? Scenes outside of the courtroom could have used flashes of real color, as could the social circle interiors of other scenes instead of keeping the low-key lighting so constant. It became a distraction for me. He may as well have used glorious B&W.

Other technical aspects are fine and the background score is effective without becoming overwhelming. ROBIN WRIGHT PENN plays Mary Surratt with quiet dignity and strength. KEVIN KLINE is almost unrecognizable as the stubbornly determined EDWIN STANTON seeking quick justice, EVAN RACHEL WOOD is effective as the distraught daughter Anna Surratt, and JOHNNY SIMMONS is sobering as the accused woman's son who manages to escape imprisonment for his role in the John Wilkes Booth caper. His character, unfortunately, isn't fleshed out at all.

Biggest supporting role goes to TOM WILKINSON as the man who urges McAvoy to take the defense case against his wishes. He and McAvoy share most of the running time on screen and do magnificent jobs.

History buffs will no doubt find this more interesting than the average movie fan looking for a more adventurous look at the past, but despite flaws, it is competently made and does recreate the actual events in a satisfying manner by use of flashbacks and an intelligent script. But did it have to be so dark?

With the release of The Conspirator director Robert Redford hopes to be making more films like this which he says are historically accurate. At least by Redford's interpretation of historical events and the one he picked is still being picked over by many historians of the Civil War and Reconstruction period.

This film focuses on the trial and aftermath of the Lincoln assassination and most particularly on Mary Surratt at whose boardinghouse in Washington, DC, John Wilkes Booth and his curious band of conspirators met and plotted. One of those was Mary's son John who was the only one to escape apprehension.

The villain in the film is Secretary Of War Edwin M. Stanton played by Kevin Kline. It was not hard for him to do what he did, he certainly had public approval. The assassinated president Abe Lincoln had suspended the right of habeas corpus during the war, so this trial by military tribunal was not an unforeseeable step that Stanton would take. It is important to remember that at the time we actually were at war with Confederate Armies still in the field. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox five days before the assassination, but Joe Johnston was in the field and when it is announced that the last Confederate Armies have surrendered the day of the hanging, they are referring to Richard Taylor's troops in Texas.

James McAvoy is a young army veteran and lawyer who becomes Mary Surratt's lawyer. In the end he believes in her innocence, but the forces of vengeance are too much for him to overcome. And while Surratt might not have been as innocent as the film makes out, no case beyond reasonable doubt was proved at least by the rules of any civil trial that should have taken place.

The film really belongs to Robin Wright as the implacable and fatalistic Mary Surratt. She definitely merits some Oscar consideration next year. Up there on the screen she becomes everyone's mother and one wonders about Johnnie Simmons as John Surratt seen in flashback as to why he isn't coming to the plate on this.

Perhaps because even Stanton was afraid of public opinion if two Surratt women were in custody on trial for their lives daughter Anna Surratt played by Evan Rachel Wood was never charged. She must have had some knowledge of what was going on. One aspect of the story I think Redford missed and I'm surprised as he's an actor and matinée idol back in the day himself. John Wilkes Booth though his southern sympathies were well known though his plotting a secret, was the great matinée idol of his day. And he certainly attracted his fair share of what would be called groupies back in the day. I think he probably favored Anna Surratt and certainly John Surratt was glad to be included in his entourage. Put in those terms the relationship becomes clearer.

Still Redford has crafted a justly well received film and it will no doubt lead to talk about the rights of the accused of the worst kind of crimes.

It's 1865. Captain Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) returns as a hero looking to be a lawyer and be with his girlfriend Sarah Weston (Alexis Bledel). John Wilkes Booth and his companions attack the President and Secretary of State William Seward. After Lincoln's death, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline) rounds up the suspects including Mary Surratt (Robin Wright). Her son John Surratt had escaped. Maryland Senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) is Mary Surratt's lawyer and he asks Aiken to be his second chair. Major General David Hunter (Colm Meaney) heads the military tribunal. Johnson as a southerner wants the reluctant Aiken to take over the case. Sarah and his friend Nicholas Baker (Justin Long) are both initially shocked. Anna Surratt (Evan Rachel Wood) is Mary's daughter.

It's a fascinating lesser known history. The problem for the movie is that she and her son are basically guilty of something. The story is interesting, but it is never elevated to a point where I actually care about her case. The government essentially found the right people. She may have been overcharged and the government may have railroaded her. At best, she knew of their conspiracy and she didn't stop it. I don't even think that the movie's position and whether she knew the conspiracy turn from kidnapping to murder is not a big deal. This is like an academic exercise although it's a very fascinating one. The movie is also hampered by some slow spots in its two hour running time.