Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

user-960-225284 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 The soundtrack is expected, the historical references are expected but would have to be verified as it appears some poetic license was used here and all the references are from Phil's demented memory of what might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....

Girish Gowda Record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) hires Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) to defend him when he's accused of murder. Cutler persuades Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren) to advise him. While the prosecution's story is contradicted by facts in the case, there is convincing circumstantial evidence against Spector, not the least of which is his appearance. As Baden gradually takes over the defense, even as she is ill with pneumonia, she must find a way to introduce ballistic evidence in a dramatic enough fashion to plant doubt in the jury's mind. Calling Specter to testify may be the only way to stage the evidence. She coaches him and rehearses him: can he (and she) pull it off? Directed by David Mamet, this work is based on a real-life incident, but it comes with a disclaimer that its just a fictional tale. If anybody doesn't know about these people beforehand, then don't expect the movie to provide much more than surface level, superficial insight into the lives of these characters. Al Pacino, Helen Mirren and the rest of the highly qualified cast do a wonderful job in their mediocre roles. The movie doesn't have an electric tension as needed by such works and is slow and one can't help feeling that Phil Spector hid the whole truth from everyone right till the end. The one area where it excels is by not portraying the lead character, Linda as some sort of a hero or a villain, but as an efficient person who just does her job. Not terrible, but it lacks a point. Most of the titular character's monologues are... well, purely boring. I know that they didn't want to make a documentary, but the audience needs something to understand the main character, real or not. The whole movie builds up to the trial and it ends right before it. It was done on purpose, but the whole charade was dreadful, along with the wigs, which might actually have been the only things that imbibed characterization into Spector.5/10

l_rawjalaurence 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.

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.