Phil Spector

Phil Spector (2013)

*** (out of 4)

David Mamet wrote and directed this bio-pic taking a look at the relationship between record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) and his defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren). The film starts off with a rather strange "warning" stating that this isn't based on a true story but inspired by the events of the case. I think it's pretty clear that Mamet feels that Spector was innocent in the crime, which he of course is sitting in prison for now. I'm not certain what the point of the movie was but it certainly works in terms of entertainment thanks to two great performances as well as a screenplay full of wonderful dialogue. I think the strongest thing going here are the performances and the screenplay. It should go without saying but both Pacino and Mirren are absolutely flawless in their performance and especially Pacino. If you're familiar with Spector then you know what a weird little man he was and I was really surprised to see how well Pacino pulled off the role. This isn't really a 100% mimic of Spector but instead Pacino really gets inside this guy and you do feel that we're seeing a real character and not just an actor playing a weird man. I found Pacino to be incredibly believable and especially during the scenes where his character goes into some frantic moments due to no one believing him. Mirren, who has to play the role sick, is also extremely good and comes across very strong. Jeffrey Tambor is also a lot of fun in his supporting role. Mamet's screenplay is full of that wonderful dialogue that he's best known for and I thought it really helped bring the lead character to life and help you understand him a bit more. I think those who feel that Spector is guilty are going to be upset with how they show him here but I found it to be quite interesting. The actual events of the case aren't really told in great detail and the courtroom stuff isn't what the movie is about. With that said, I'm really not sure what they were trying to do with the picture other than say Spector was convicted not because he murdered someone but because he's weird.

Pacino delivers another epic performance absolutely nailing Phil Spector. Helen Mirren was great. David Mamet's writing and dialog are absolutely brilliant.

Now, I don't know about the accuracy of the piece, but it is so powerfully convincing, I could believe it to be the truth. Whether or not was irrelevant to me as the film states upfront that it is not intended to be interpreted as an absolute representation of fact. I mean, the media is more propaganda than anything else, why would one 'expect' gospel truth from a movie?

With the predominance of Shlock in today's film world, I found this to be highly entertaining, I was completely absorbed and thoroughly enjoyed the ride it took me on.

If you're thinking this film is about the trial of Phil Spector, it isn't. It does, however, contain a lot about preparing for the trial.

Helen Mirren is Linda Kenney Baden, who reluctantly takes on the murder case of Phil Spector, who is accused of killing Lana Clarkson in his home. Spector claims it was suicide.

Baden reluctantly finds herself believing him, as she performs a series of experiments that to her prove he could not have done it. Though trying to talk with Spector is very difficult, she also finds herself liking him.

This is a good character study, if a little on the slow side. It would have been dreadful without Mirren and Pacino, however. Pacino plays Spector as a pathetic has-been who brags about his past accomplishments as he sits isolated in his home,"The Castle." He loses his temper often and goes off on tangents. "Would I have lost everything for her?" he asks Mirren about Clarkson. Because of his crazy behavior and history with guns and women, Spector is in a lot of trouble.

The film brings us through the mock trial and Baden's attempts to have Spector take the stand to see if he can do it. It's a disaster. On the day of the trial, he shows up in a huge fright wig and looks terrifying. Baden has her work cut out for her.

Mirren is wonderful as a woman with a cold that turns into pneumonia who is nonetheless vigorous in her defense. The best scene is when she receives a suggestion from an associate. To illustrate a point, she shows a young attorney the yellow piece that used to go in the middle of a .45 record - he doesn't know what it is. She shows him a .45 record and he guesses, "something for the computer?" She turns to her associate and says, "None of these people are going to know what you're talking about." Mirren is masterful.

In the end, which is not part of the movie, the first trial was a mistrial, but Baden could not take part in the second trial and he was convicted.

This HBO movie is worth seeing for the performances. It is slow at times, but then again, it's not very long.

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.

Nice TV movie about the trial of record producer Phil Spector.

Al Pacino as Spector, Helen Mirren as the lawyer who represents him.

Good writing/directing by David Mamet, good acting. Nothing amazing, but it's a good court drama that kept me interested throughout the movie.

As the remark in the beginning of the movie says, it's fictionalized, and I treated the movie like that - some of the situations were obviously fictionalized (such as the trial rehearsal and the entire lawyers office, which seems more like a police station). I don't know how accurate the details presented in the movie are, but if it's half right then it raises some serious questions about the case.