I believe Surratt was guilty as hell as well as Dr. Mudd. At the Surratt House in Maryland one of the “docents” also believes it and gave me a wonderful tour of the old tavern and family home.
But isn’t this movie really an anti-Guantanamo screed? Redford is sooooo transparent.
Good review from Armond White
here.
Metacritic reviews here.
Metacritic score = 55/100.
The verdict looks like "long, leaden, boring, burdensome, heavy-handed."
Maybe if Redford just told the story, didn't worry about underlining parallels to the present, and let the audience decide who was right and who was wrong, who was guilty and who was innocent, it would have been a better movie.
I can't help noticing, though ...
... the poster doesn't advertise what the movie actually is.
It makes the film look more like a who-dun-it, than a boring sermon about habeus corpus.
I have seen this movie advertised, and as soon as I saw Redford’s name I knew it was a liberal POS film and decided to pass on it.
Was Mary Surrat guilty? More than likely she was. It is pretty hard to believe that much could have been going on around her, and she was completely in the dark.
Should they have hanged her for her part? Probably not, but they were pretty rabid in their desire to punish someone.
Of course Mary Surratt was innocent. /s/
According to the Left the police have NEVER arrested the right person, especially if they were evil Republican police.
PS: she was guilty. She knew exactly what was going on under her roof.