SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Lawbolisted Powerful

DubyaHan The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Prismark10 Phil Spector is a HBO film written and directed by David Mamet who has form when it comes to doing courtroom thrillers. The film opens with a disclaimer that describes the film as a work of fiction 'inspired' by actual persons in a trial.It is a work of fiction that provides a slanted account of what happened on that fateful night when Lana Clarkson died and suggests that Spector is innocent.It also helps that Al Pacino's Phil Spector is a more likable personification than the actual person has more right to deserve. A bewigged Pacino of course rants and raves as his lawyers probe him, try to get under his skin especially as they rehearse the cross examination.However Phil Spector to many people is a legendary music producer who became an eccentric recluse in the early 1970s and was seen very little of until he stood trial for murder.The film suggests that Spector paid the price of other celebrities being found not guilty in recent years. The film itself is not a courtroom drama. It is a study of the evolving relationship between Spector and one of his lawyer's played by Helen Mirren who is at first sceptical and then thinks there is more than a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.However even with a high powered cast that film is not as interesting or riveting than it should be. The revisionist tone also feels that the victim is somehow forgotten because she was not famous enough therefore she does not matter. However who does really care for a has been music supremo who took credit for songs he may not had written or even had much involvement in producing and was increasingly disconnected from real life?

SnoopyStyle Legendary record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) is accused of murdering Lana Clarkson. He insists that she killed herself. His defense attorney Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) hires consultant Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren) to help. The evidence is circumstantial but the most damning is probably Spector himself.With David Mamet, Al Pacino, and Helen Mirren, I had greater hopes. Sure it's just a TV movie but HBO likes to think of themselves as more than TV. It's mostly about the behind the scenes of the defense during the trial as they cobble the evidence together. Without both sides, the movie feels like it's missing something. Pacino is throwing a lot into his performance. Mirren is solid. The most interesting part for me is the opening text of NOT based on a true story. After that, some of the inside baseball looked interesting. The case isn't that complicated. I come away with the feeling that this is only the most superficial of a look inside of Spector's mind.

leplatypus This is at last an American movie who tells the truth: First, unlike many biopics today that hide the changes operated about the real facts, this one opens saying this is a work of fiction!Next, a bit like the writer Jackie Collins, this is one a few movie that depicts the hidden (real) face of celebrities, far away from shining stars and close to dark neurotics. This Phil Spector is a bit like a white King of Pop as he lives like a recluse in an outstanding mansion and if poised with musical talent, he is however totally unable to behave in the real life.It's also a kind of old school law movie as the criminal investigation is more about finding motives, witness, training the defendant and designing the murder instead of the boring analysis of the chemical elements of the evidence that we see today.So, it's really well written (in particular for an analysis of stardom) and as well directed: the opening of the mansion is really great and the huge office that the lawyers build for the case is also intriguing. Now, Al is really good here: as it's about an eccentric achiever, i found that he has the same energy and shouting power than he had in "Scarface". It's funny to see that Al and Phil really looks alike getting old. At 74, Al shows that he is really among the best actor ever but his career is to atypical to get the impact it should have. Doing TV movies to find attractive characters isn't paying for audience but it says also that screen movies, as Spielberg and Lynch warned, have turned into stinkers. Unfortunately, for those who wanted a repeat from his brilliant previous "Dr. Death", it doesn't happen: his co-star here Mirren really lacks of presence. Worst, the movie is ultra quick and ends abruptly.

donaldgilbert I just read through the reviews (9 as of this writing) and I find reactions interesting yet predictable. Yes, we can talk about performances- Pacino is "masterful"! Mirren is "pure class"! Yes, we can talk about Mamet's writing style. I guess that, for me, these are reviews seemingly by film students and not people who paid attention to not the technical details but what the movie is about.It is, in my mind, less about Phil Spector, and more about the legal system, about understanding society's inclination toward prejudging, presuming guilt, casting the first stone, and it's inability to distinguish between an eccentric and a psychotic. As for the performances, did we suddenly expect poor acting from the talent of this cast? They're good actors and they delivered as expected. I don't think the reviews are helpful when they focus on such trivialities.Anyway, I thought it was interesting, reflective... but not a "masterpiece". Absolutely recommended- I'd say 7 stars.