First, let's get this straight: CONSPIRACY is a straightforward, modern-day remake of the Spencer Tracy classic, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK. Val Kilmer takes on the Tracy role, playing an outsider who arrivals in a small town to track down his missing friend. Turns out that everybody knows something, but nobody's saying anything.I liked this film for the most part because it avoids clichés and it doesn't rely on cheesy action to propel the storyline. After the prologue, the first hour or so is engaging and suspenseful, building up a level of intrigue that most B-movies rarely attempt. There's an air of mystery hanging over the whole production and you actively want to find out what's going on.Gradually, the story does fizzle out a bit as it progresses, and the last half hour resorts to the usual clichés: massive shoot-outs, showdowns in the desert, bad guys getting just deserts, and so on. The cast members are adequate for this production; Kilmer is at least trying as the former soldier suffering from PTSD, while Gary Cole can do this sinister villain stuff in his sleep by now.The biggest disappointment is from Adam Marcus, the director. This is a guy who worked once since 1993's JASON GOES TO HELL, and his lack of experience shows. The dialogue scenes are passable, but the action sequences are hellishly bad. It appears they ran out of money for stunts or decent choreography because the action is all over the place and a real mess, sapping enjoyment at the showdown which should be a bit of glorious vengeance. Still, CONSPIRACY gets a lot of kudos from me for the first hour...

Val Kilmer sleep walks through this film as if he's just lost his best friend. He is so portly that this movie would resemble a spaghetti western where the hero ate all of the spaghetti. There is even a nude scene where Kilmer, encased in hairless blubber, is laid out on a tile floor naked. Never before have I seen such phony fight scenes. Bad guys rush Kilmer but are mysteriously thrown to the ground by a telekinetic force. This happens over and over again. The overweight hero walks into town and speaks to the semi attractive woman at the "lending" library. Why not just "library"? Don't all libraries imply the word "lending" without saying it? Anyway, this woman practically throws her back out and makes ridiculous facial contortions as she flirts shamelessly with our corpulent hero. He takes it all in stride, as if it happens all the time; his face never deviating from a depressing scowl. I would have thought he'd enter the sandwich shop or the nearest deli before looking for a book. And the entire movie looks as if it were shot with a video camera; it probably was. Pathetic.

I 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.

Film is entertainment, to be sure, but film is also art.In the entertainment category, this movie is essentially interchangeable with any random episode of "the Dukes of Hazzard" or "the A-Team". That is, campy garbage.In the art category, it's somewhere between soul-less, mass-produced garbage (see also, comics in the paper which ran their course years ago but which continue on anyway) and something your kid made which you are forced to display on the refrigerator. That is, hollow, of low-quality, and unimpressive.Sad for Val Kilmer, who was so very recently awesome in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". I guess it's no surprise- IMDb shows he worked on nine different projects in 2008. Perhaps one of his other projects will make up for it.I give the movie a 3 merely for its technical merit- the prize you get for showing up, so to speak- and the fact that the movie hints at a conspiracy concerning the USA and war {gasp!}.