Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

moonspinner55 Dramatization of events in the murder trial of once-famous record producer Phil Spector, who was accused in the shooting death of struggling actress Lana Clarkson in his Hollywood mansion in 2003. Cable offering from HBO Films (who open the movie with a disclaimer!) is a triumph for writer-director David Mamet, who succinctly examines the events of the case, coming up with no motive for murder on Spector's behalf. While typically over-the-top during the course of the proceedings, Al Pacino still manages to give a mesmerizing performance; his portrait of Spector is, by turns, strange, sad, deluded, self-amused and amusing, and utterly out of control. Spector is a lunatic, but does that make him a murderer? Mamet isn't so sure, and provides for us great food for thought. Helen Mirren, as defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (with a nagging cold) is nearly as masterful as Pacino. Nominated for 11 Emmy Awards, the film surprisingly came up empty-handed; nevertheless, a superlative achievement.

doug_park2001 Simple, low-budgety, but very realistic little docu-drama. Pacino really shines as Spector, and Helen Mirren is similarly good as defense attorney Linda Kelley Baden. Much of it consists of private conferences between Spector and Baden, as well as between Baden and her cohort attorneys. Though it shows nothing in the way of flashback to the alleged crime and little of the actual trial, PHIL SPECTOR is very revealing of the games and agendas that are so often involved in criminal prosecutions, especially when they are high in profile and/or involve celebrities. It's also a strong character study of a super-arrogant, often downright repellent man who possesses some nonetheless admirable qualities.

edwagreen While Al Pacino and Helen Mirren fully capture their roles in this 2013 film, I found the film lacking for several reasons. I think the film ended too abruptly. They should have gone on to show the mistrial and the second one which ultimately convicted Spector.Pacino has the role down to a science as he always does. However, the writing had him rambling here and that would convince any jury of his guilt.Did Mirren actually have pneumonia or was her illness more serious?They should have also shown some scenes showing the victim Ms. Clarkson. Did she do herself in or did Spector really blow her away? This is a question that is left hanging.Mirren seemed to be drawn to the role and by film's end has doubts whether or not Spector is guilty.

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.