What makes it different from others?

Well Deserved Praise

Really Surprised!

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

Very strange disclaimer at the beginning of the movie (claiming that this is a fiction and not based on real characters) describes the whole approach here, where things are not being said in order not to offend anybody - why making this movie at all? - and never going into real dirt and making a statement but pussyfooting around very real crime like "it doesn't really matter" so it all turns into courtroom drama about lawyers fighting and nitpicking, building the case and planning how to destroy the opponent. Some interesting points: main attorney taking his salary (a cold million) and pulling out with money just to leave his client because of "other obligations", a woman asking "How would you feel if he gets out of it and kills another woman?" Like with everything else, movie simply skips these little details and goes on about Phil Spector being weird recluse who is misunderstood because he is washed-up eccentric and delusional modern day male version of Norma Desmond. But my main objection here is, no matter what public perception there is, the fact is still that we are talking about crime. A person can wear a flowerpot on top of his head and still won't end up in court if there is no other objection. I absolutely love 1960s music that Spector created but it doesn't take away the fact that guy was known for decades as a gun weaving sadist who usually got along with everything because of his wealth. Even if script is disappointingly and maddeningly avoiding any statement, acting is superb as we have clash of Titans. Al Pacino bites in his role for all that's worth and no matter what he says, how he rages, pleads, charms and tries to behave, he knows what he knows and we are just left guessing. Helen Mirren as his replacement-attorney holds perfectly her own against this monumental ego and calmly tries to built up a case for defense that occasionally even make a sense. Often she has to behave like Sister Rachel in "One Flew Over The Coockoo's Nest" towards her client who is so darn irrational and we can sense her struggle in getting a job done. I must say that Mirren is so good at this that I can't possibly imagine director's first choice (Bette Midler) in this role. At the end, it probably depends how much are you familiar with subject in order to enjoy this courtroom drama.

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.

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.