Phil Spector

source: Phil Spector

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.

I'm thinking that Pacino and Mirren must have had a lot of faith in David Mamet when making this horrible movie. It must be difficult during the filming to assess the quality of the work; it's done in bits and pieces so you leave the vision in the director's hands. Still, they must have had a clue. There is really nothing worth critiquing in this dark and sad film. There are no human emotions demonstrated among any of the characters, especially among the crew of lawyers whose aim, it seems to me, was to give Spector a defense he could pay a million dollars for. If you want to see Pacino in a terrific role for his increasing age, see him in HBO's "I Don't Know Jack," about Jack Kevorkian. As for this film, all I can wonder is why on earth Mamet did it.

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.

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.

The acting is excellent but why these actors made this worthless film is beyond me. Spector himself is a sicko character in real life and Pacino shows Spector for what he is but this film just sucks. The biggest moments (and it was expected) is when the topic of the Beatles comes up. Invoking his relationship with the Beatles as if he was of importance in their career, he wasn't. He was just another loony they met along the long winding road. The soundtrack is expected, the historical references are expected but would have to be verified as it appears some poetic license was used here and all the references are from Phil's demented memory of what might have happened. All in all it's a film about an uninteresting character that got away with years of indulging his own ego until it caught with him, unfortunately at the expense of a young woman's life. The film will make you happy the Phil Spector is rotting in a cell and hopefully being treated like the scum that he is. If you need to puke this is the film for you....

David Mamet's HBO film Phil Spector is less about the famous Wall of Sound producer than about Mamet himself, the screenwriter and director.The film as Mamet's meditation on a few themes beyond Spector's case. The primary theme is Mamet's familiar reaction against liberal right-think. He demonstrates the liberal's reflexive assumption that the woman must be the innocent victim, the powerful man must be the killer, especially if the woman is poor and the man is rich. Against this kneejerk and righteous bias any scientific evidence has no effect. With Talmudic rigour Mamet calls the rich to be accorded the same justice as the poor. So must the freakish. Here Mamet's Spector joins the long line of respectable crazies he cites, from Lenny Bruce to Jimi Hendrix to the pre-Yoko bald hermit John Lennon as free spirited eccentrics to whom justice must be paid. Finally, the film coheres with Mamet's controversial recent defense of the present gun "regulation" in America. Mamet discourages the assumption that a man who owns guns in necessarily responsible for any fatal mishaps they may cause. It also defends the apparently unbalanced -- in this case the creative -- against prejudgment. Don't go to this film for any truth about Spector and his failed date and the trial. True to the dynamic of fiction, Mamet's subject is about the larger interplay of elements of which the Spector history may or may not be one instance. His subject is the prejudice by which even -- or rather, particularly -- the righteous can blind themselves to any alternative reality and preclude justice. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.

I sit somewhere on the fence with this piece. I tip my hat to the skilled crafts people who worked on this little film (hence the 7 of 10). It looks great. Sounds great. Smells great. The performances...eh, it probably boils down to what/who you are into. I see and understand a lot of the critiques people have with the actors' performances. I do love Helen Mirren. If it were Pacino and Bette Midler, to be honest, I probably would have spent 80 minutes elsewhere. But, overall the experience for me was gaining a little more perspective on Phil Spector and this trial that existed in the periphery for me. This trial didn't really engage me at the time and I knew/know little of the facts, gossip and the characters involved. Overall this is a tight little story that made me pay attention to something that was white noise to me while it played out. Additionally, this is just another tick in the box for television at the moment over film. I think film/movies/cinema has hit a bit of the old dark ages at the moment. TV and broadcast is kind of where smart, well crafted and interesting story telling is happening (thank god for cable). I think it can go further for sure and hopefully execs realize there is a market here and figure out a way to make money to do it (we don't all want 4 minute youtube series episodes). I hope for the day that things can get really crazy, experimental and smart for story telling. We're not there yet. But, in the meantime...this is pretty good. If I may meander a little more off review, because I've read other critiques of the piece...for people who have a more personal stake in all of this (ie family, friends, colleagues etc. of those involved), I say this: This little film didn't make me feel like Phil Spector did or didn't kill Lana. It made more aware and more sympathetic to both parties. Ultimately, for me, I think it's not a great idea at all when you are entertaining people, and you are wasted, to show them your gun collection (no matter how impressive). For that, he does deserve 18 years (with parole options). I don't care if you are the Sultan of Brunei and out of you mind from Parkinson's or drink...that is just not a good party plan. Whether she put the gun in and pulled or he pulled...it doesn't matter to me. He got convicted for general poor judgement. When people come to my house, I offer them a glass of water, some wine, maybe some weed, not a gun to play with. However the night went down, it's probably better he went to jail. That doesn't mean I'm devoid of sympathy for him, it just means there is something wrong with him and his judgement. This poor judgement cost someone their life and people do go to prison for less. I think he is in the right place. Hopefully he is getting the medical care he needs. And, if he remembers nothing else in his great and impressive life, he needs to remember a woman is dead from his gun and poor judgement.

HBO attracts sometimes the best talent to come and do movies for TV. With talents such as David Mamet, Al Pacino and Helen Mirren behind the project I was excited to see Spector's story told through the eyes of Mamet. The film tells the story of Phil Spector (Al Pacino) during his first trial against the murder of Lana Clarkson. Helping Spector mainly is Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren) who is struggling with her health but try's to help him be innocent. Spector as presented in the film is not a stable person and that is the perfect character for Pacino to play I believe. Mamet is a better writer then director and while he is OK behind the camera directing his writing in one particular scene is where Mamet's association with the film gets to shine. The best scene of the film is the introduction to Spector because of how it moves so greatly between the dialogue and looking at the size of the house where Spector lives. Al Pacino plays the title character Phil Spector and he gives another performance that could go over the top but does feel real in most of his scenes of the film. He is best in show in the film and while it's not his best TV performance it is enjoyable to see the great Pacino on the screen. Helen Mirren plays Linda Kenney Baden and I did not like her at all in the film. From her ever changing accent from scene to scene next to Pacino she was unimpressive overall. Her scenes opposite Pacino were good but even she could not handle him and overall I hated her performance in the film. No other actor is worth talking about compared to the two leads. From seeing Pacino do more Mamet dialogue and seeing the story of this guy made for an enjoyable film that when it was over I was not blown away by what I was presented. MOVIE GRADE: B- (MVP: Al Pacino)

HBO should have fired David Mamet and made a film based on the facts that came out in the trial. The phony claims about blood splatters that were made in Mamet's film are blatant lies, as proved by the police photos of the murder scene, and evidence that proved that Spector had to be within two feet of Clarkson. HBO could have made an electrifying film with the same cast, using the same disturbed character, but based on evidence. Pacino could have been shown walking out the back door, with the gun in his hand, after murdering Clarkson, seen by his driver, with blood on his hand. Phil Spector confessed to the murder to both his chauffeur and to a police officer at his house. The film could have shown Pacino spending 45 minutes, dipping a diaper in a toilet, and using it to wipe down the weapon and the crime scene, to cover up his crime. A nice camera angle could have repeatedly shown his phone all this time. Flashbacks of the phone could have been shown, while his revolving door of highly paid celebrity defense attorneys asked him, "If she committed suicide, why didn't you call 9-1-1?" Flashbacks could have demonstrated that Lana Clarkson was right-handed, as his attorneys asked how the gun could have ended up behind her left foot. We could have seen Pacino place it there after the crime scene cleanup, not realizing that it could not possibly be there, if she had committed suicide. His attorneys could have been shown asking him, "If she took a gun and sat down to kill herself, why would her purse strap be hanging from her dead shoulder, as though she were ready to leave your house? HBO could have shown a flashback of a member of the defense team stealing Lana Clarkson's fingernail from the crime scene, as they showed a member of the defense testifying about it. The truth was more compelling than the lies they tried to sell. Instead of a post script about the conviction, the film could have shown the courtroom verdict. The audience would have had a satisfying feeling that a rich washed-up record producer couldn't pay lawyers millions of dollars to get away with murdering an innocent woman. Al Pacino is better than this. Instead of selling out, to make this defamatory garbage, he should have insisted on going all out, and playing Phil Spector as the Bad Guy that he really was in this case.