GetPapa Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Micransix Crappy film

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

sddavis63 Melinda Greyton (Elizabeth Taylor) is visiting England from America and meets Major Michael Curragh (Robert Taylor) at a fancy ball. It's a case of love at first sight for both and they end up married. First you have to set aside the discomfort of the age difference between the two. Elizabeth was 17 when this was made (playing an 18 year old) and Robert was 38 (playing a 31 year old.) It's not really that much of a problem. There's no real scenes of intimacy - or even much of affection - between them, but you certainly notice it. The story revolves around Melinda becoming gradually suspicious of some of her new husband's activities and finally discovering that he's actually a communist, and a Soviet spy, feeding information to Moscow about British and American defence plans. The movie then deals with the consequences of her discovery for them both.As spy capers go, it's not especially thrilling. It's actually rather slow paced, and the story itself isn't all that riveting. In the first half of the movie really all that we glean is that being a member of the Communist Party is a real drag on your personal life. But both Taylors put on performances that make it worth watching. Elizabeth - in what seems to have been her first "adult" role - did a fine job portraying Melinda's evolution from a naive and innocent young girl who's completely smitten by Curragh to a more worldly woman who's suspicious of and even frightened by Curragh. She had a much more illustrious career to come, but this certainly shows her potential as an actress. Robert was effective in showing what were essentially the two different sides of Curragh - the romantic and sometimes even playful man who fell so easily in love, and the hardened communist agent whose love for his young bride was second to his devotion to his ideology. Robert did a good job of showing Curragh as a man torn between those two loyalties and his portrayal of a communist agent was somewhat ironic, given that he himself was virulently anti-communist who helped out so-called "reds" in the movie business to the House Un-American Activities Committee."Conspirator" certainly isn't a classic spy film, but it does do a reasonably effective job of building (albeit somewhat slowly) to its eventual climax. (6/10)

gridoon2018 It's true that in Alfred Hitchcock's hands this might have become a classic, in the mold of "Suspicion" (there is even a homage to that film, in particular the famous "glass of milk" scene). But even as it is, it's a perfectly acceptable little spy thriller. It does let the cat out of the bag (regarding Robert Taylor's double life) a little too early, but there are still some suspenseful sequences, like the one in the reeds, and both Taylors give splendid performances (he doesn't look 31 - he was 38 - but he is very good at portraying internal conflict). Future Bond girl Honor Blackman is also in the film, but her role is secondary. A slick production, as usual from MGM. **1/2 out of 4.

jarrodmcdonald-1 Conspirator gives us MGM's first on-screen pairing of Robert Taylor and Elizabeth Taylor. (They reunite a short time later in Ivanhoe.) The story is rife with political intrigue and benefits from on-location filming in Europe; a somewhat suspenseful cold war plot; and top-notch studio production values. However, doesn't the ingénue seem a bit too young to play a wife? In the story, she is meant to be 18 (but is actually 16 in real life); and Mr. Taylor's character is said to be 31 (but he is 37). At more than twice her age, he is old enough to be her father; and yet, this fact is barely even mentioned and hardly a story point. One supposes that this is what is known in the film business as dramatic license. It certainly couldn't be a case of miscasting, could it?

theowinthrop Most of the anti-Communist films of the 1940s - 1950s are crap. No doubt about that. Thrown together they had preposterous plots emanating from the Kremlin to sap our national resources or strength. For example one film has Lee Marvin heading a major atomic spy ring outside a missile range from a hamburger/hash stand! The best films of the period dealing with communist threats were the science fiction films like THE THING or THEM wherein the monster was a symbol for the threat to Americans (from an "alien" source). Occasionally a semi-documentary might attract attention, but not much.Oddly enough this early movie was somewhat above average. First it correctly looked at our wartime friend and partner England as a possible source of leakage. This turned out to be somewhat true (but the Rosenberg Case would soon show homegrown spy rings existed as well). Secondly it showed something usually ignored or rendered minor in most of these films. Here it is developed into the issue: who are you going to show greater loyalty to, the Communist Party or your naive spouse?What I really like about CONSPIRATOR is that Robert Taylor plays the central figure - whom American and British audiences were to hiss at. He had tackled a few ambiguous characters before World War II, most notably William Bonney in BILLY THE KID (but that screenplay, like Darryl Zanuck's film of JESSIE JAMES, whitewashed a great deal of the bad out of the central character). But after the war MGM treated Taylor (now a seasoned leading star of theirs) to a wider variety of parts, including more villainous characters. Think of him in the somewhat earlier UNDERCURRENT with Kate Hepburn and Robert Mitchum. Both of these films could not have been made with Taylor in the 1930s.I also sort of enjoy the idea that Taylor, a friendly, but sincere witness for the H.U.A.C subcommittee against Communist infiltration into the movie industry actually did this film. It is his only chance to show what he thought of a Communist agent, and his interpretation (and the screenplay's) show he saw them as naive fools.Also it is the first time in his career that Taylor starred with the only female star of his rank (or higher) with the same last name: Elizabeth Taylor. Just leaving such films as NATIONAL VELVET, LITTLE WOMEN, and LIFE WITH FATHER, she finally came of age here as a young bride. In some ways I have always felt that Ms Taylor's glorious beauty was at a pristine height in films of the early 1950s like this one or FATHER OF THE BRIDE. Here she is in love with her dashing wartime hero husband, whom she gradually realizes is not as heroic (for England) as she thought (though he would disagree - witness his scene telling her about how he has joined one of the great causes of all time!).The film follows their courtship, their marriage, and the discovery of his treason by her. The issue of course is whether or not he will be turned in by her, or will he love her enough to withstand pressure by his Kremlin bosses to (errr)...eradicate his error totally.The film (as mentioned in another recent review) is above average. Taylor does play this English "Col. Redl" (of an earlier war, in a different country - but serving another Russia) as a man torn apart, but refusing to acknowledge his error of judgment. In fact his final decision puts to stop to any type of acknowledgment. The one flaw in this film is similar to the later, wretched ROGUE'S MARCH with Peter Lawford and Leo G. Carroll. The omnipotence of the British Secret Service in ferreting out traitors is shown at the tale-end. I may add that in 1949 that Secret Service (MR5) contained such "patriots" as Burgess, McClean, and Philby. Yeah they really would have been watching Taylor closely!