Phil Spector

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great talent. The best. Actors, writer, director. Awful result. The worst. Acting, writing, directing.

Even the best creative talent, even when already a mature artist, can deliver bad stuff. Happens. Happened.

Young screen writers are told to avoid, and how to avoid, "exposition." This TV movie was all exposition.

The lighting leaves most scenes murky, but murky does not substitute for mystery. Mystery, and suspense, ain't none.

It opens with an on-screen statement that, in effect, this is a free fictional invention based on the trial of Phil Spector. But closes with an on-screen statement that seems to be an actual summary of the trial outcome which is not in the film. Not sure if that's also a fictional element or reality.