rbrb I have deducted 2 marks due to the ludicrous disclaimer by the film makers at the beginning of the movie. The lead actor in this "fiction" portrays someone who is a loathsome, unpleasant person, totally self centered, greedy and obsessed.In brief: a famous ex music producer is accused of picking up a woman, bringing her to his home and then when he did not get his way he put a gun in her mouth and shot her to death. After the killing he admitted to his chauffeur he had killed her. There was evidence at trial that on other occasions he had brought women home and threatened them in different ways with a gun.The defense argued the lack of blood splatter on his clothes shows the accused was not guilty and that the death was either an accident or suicide.As to the lack of blood splatter the defense lawyers could and should have found a way to show convincingly to the jury that that issue caused reasonable doubt.But obviously the defense failed to do that, and have to wonder if it was really an issue at all.The movie tries to persuade the viewer that however lacking in human kindness the accused is some how innocent. Well the jury thought otherwise; the appeal courts the same.....and me too!Decent performances in the picture, but sometimes the victims of such atrocities need a voice too and that is sadly lacking in this film:5/10.

lampic 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.

dunsuls-1 Up front I'll state I'm a fan of the music legend Phil Spector BUT I was a fan of football player and actor OJ Simpson.A killer is a killer and both are now in jail.However this film is slanted ,and rather interesting,that Phil was innocent.However,as a former juror who had to judge a case on all evidence as it was presented,I'll trust the jurors who convected Phil in his second trial.That all said,it is interesting in that IF this film is truly accurate,it would indeed explain the first case deadlocked jury.All that said, Helen Mirren as Linda Kenney Baden,the defense attorney, has a advantage over Al Pacino as Phil Spector in that you weren't going to "know"her character as you know Al's.Both were still outstanding and I never got board watching them weave their point of view of a accident death rather than the second degree murder conviction he finally received.

riverstyxmail 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.