Good concept, poorly executed.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Legendary record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) is accused of murdering Lana Clarkson. He insists that she killed herself. His defense attorney Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) hires consultant Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren) to help. The evidence is circumstantial but the most damning is probably Spector himself.With David Mamet, Al Pacino, and Helen Mirren, I had greater hopes. Sure it's just a TV movie but HBO likes to think of themselves as more than TV. It's mostly about the behind the scenes of the defense during the trial as they cobble the evidence together. Without both sides, the movie feels like it's missing something. Pacino is throwing a lot into his performance. Mirren is solid. The most interesting part for me is the opening text of NOT based on a true story. After that, some of the inside baseball looked interesting. The case isn't that complicated. I come away with the feeling that this is only the most superficial of a look inside of Spector's mind.

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 The soundtrack is expected, the historical references are expected but would have to be verified as it appears some poetic license was used here and all the references are from Phil's demented memory of what might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....

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.

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.