Phil Spector

This is a frustrating Made-for-TV-Movie. It is so short in length that it leaves the viewer with a wanting for much more. There is so much potential untapped power here. The magnetic lead Actors, the always interesting and divisive Writer/Director David Mamet and of course, the legendary Music Producer, Phil Spector.

His unique blending of multi-tracked Music into what became known as the "Wall of Sound" was so impressive and unusual that he attracted clients as diverse as The Ronnetts, The Rightheous Brothers, Tina Turner, The Beatles, and The Ramones to name a few. He was labeled a Boy Genius.

All this adulation made him into a neurotic, reclusive, abusive, megalomaniac, arrogant, show-off, but he also made the best and greatest Music that filled the much needed gap between Elvis and The Beatles with his rich and beautiful Pop Songs. He also had very few friends and quite a few jealous enemies. When asked if he liked People, he responded..."I don't know, I've never spent any time with them".

This is just a very short Movie about the weeks before the beginning of his first trial for murdering his Date. So the insights into Spector are crammed in here and what is here is interesting, but ultimately just some footnotes of a life. His guilt or not in this snapshot of the trial ordeal is fascinating. But considering all that could have been it cannot help but be nothing but a well done tempting tease.

Based on actual events that took place, PHIL SPECTOR dramatizes the court-case in which the eponymous hero (Al Pacino) is accused of murder and defended by hotshot lawyer Linda (Helen Mirren). With David Mamet as writer/director, viewers can expect nothing less than a penetrating character-study with the emphasis on great dialog and changing reactions. PHIL SPECTOR does not disappoint in this respect; a study of a once-great music producer fallen on hard times who (like Norma Desmond in SUNSET BOULEVARD) lives in fantasy-worlds of his own creation. The ever-increasingly grotesque choice of wigs Spector uses is proof of this. Sometimes it's difficult to separate truth from fiction, while listening to his lengthy speeches - which makes the lawyer's task of defending him that much more difficult. In the end Spector's pretensions are unmasked as he is literally brow-beaten into making an appearance in court: Mamet's camera focuses unrelentingly on his hands that shake uncontrollably as he listens to the evidence presented against him.

As the lawyer, Mirren acts as a workmanlike foil to Pacino's central performance. Although firmly convinced of her client's innocence, she finds it increasingly difficult to present a convincing case; the judge and the prosecution seem hell-bent on frustrating her, as well as her client. Nonetheless she shows admirable stoicism in pursuing her case.

In the end, however, PHIL SPECTOR is not really a courtroom drama, even though much of the action is set in and around the court-house. Rather it concentrates on the double-edged nature of celebrity; when you're riding high, no one can touch you, but when you're down on your luck, everyone wants to kick you. This helps to explain Spector's retreat into a fantasy-world - at least no one can touch him there.

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.

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.

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.