MovieChat Forums > Phil Spector (2013) Discussion > This was pretty bad..

This was pretty bad..

posted 11 years ago by haynese_98
12 replies | jump to latest

..and very disappointing. It seems HBO is just dishing out these one-offs like this Phil Spector fictional drama and "The Girl" about Hitchkok and Tippi Hendren. It doesn't even look like they took time to develop the story, lot's of complaints here: Did Helen Mirren really need to be annoyingly sick throughout the whole movie? Was her entrance into Phil's mansion just a copy of Clarice Starling's first entrance to see Hannibal Lector? Why so short? Was it because they didn't have a big budget nor even a decent story?

The more I think about it the more I think the budget just killed this project. Sure they had two stars in Pacino and Mirren(who did just fine btw) along with a noted screen writer but this does not guarantee success if everything else is just on the cheap.

D-

"There is no Hollywood any more, there's just a bunch of banks"

[–] BlueRoses47 11 years ago

I agree, this was pretty disappointing all the way around, considering the talent involved.

Is it because it's low budget?

I'm always amazed when actors I feel can almost do no wrong are involved in such a poor final product. Sometimes I think it's just a problem with the basic script in general, but not knowing anything about film making really, I'm never sure.

Anyway, this was just not good.

[–] haynese_98 11 years ago

It starts with a bad idea and then somebody writes a treatment or a rough draft and proposes it to HBO, who unwisely greenlit the project. It's nothing but downhill from there.

"There is no Hollywood any more, there's just a bunch of banks"

[–] rochelle-rochelle 11 years ago

I was very disappointed in this film. Writing sucked. It was too short. Mirren's performance wasn't noteworthy. Introduction to Phil's home and Mirren meeting him was way too long - like a 20 minute monologue. I'm more confused NOW about the whole murder than I was before I saw this movie. What was the purpose of this movie?

I only liked two things about this movie:
1) The music played during the movie
2) Al's performance during the mock trial scene (Emmy worthy)

All the rest was crap.

I specifically reminded her - bedside table! On the Kangaroo!

[–] lambiepie-2 11 years ago

What was the purpose of this movie?

The purpose of all things entertainment...another perspective. Let's face it, real law is boring. Real cases are boring. Anything I ever seen of Mamet is long monologues of stage plays. If you're not interested in the subject matter, Mamet can be so boring. What made this? Al Pacino's performance of a man we STILL have questions about. And an attorney who -- well-- could have had this man walk.

This did not set out to answer the question of Spector was guilty or not. Nor to dramatize speculation (which I really appreciated). Phil Spector was a musical genius, but an awful man towards women. You got that, as that is the only thing that we all could see. But did he kill this woman? Don't know, and this did not give me any new answers to that, or about her. But it did take you to a very boring place (and why I hate Jury Duty). It left you to answer the question. It brought to you something many of us know nothing about. To me, it was a play, as most of Mamet's stuff is. I like theater, I like few character plays. This was one.

Did it answer anything for me? Nope. Did it tell me more about Phil Spector I already didn't know? Nope. Did it give me any new indications of Lana Clarkson and whether he shot her or did she kill herself? Nope. What it did do was make me wonder, what DID go on up there, and why was this case so scattered? I think this was purposely scattered. I think this was purposely a character driven stage performance, rather than a lot of innuendo and fiction because....law is boring. Really, boring. Honestly, I like '12 Angry Men' and I like 'Reversal of Fortune' as films but the Phil Spector story falls somewhere in between these two. Come on, there are a few more stories to tell about this. Mamet chose a very different angle. Small, slight...slow, questionable. Boring -- but effective because...we're all still talking about it.

Retrain your brain!

[–] pacinoyes 11 years ago

Haven't seen this yet but your comments pretty much repeat what some people I know have said. Clearly this is a polarizing film - if I just go by Twitter and things like that - everyone seems to agree on the acting being top notch but not whether the acting is enough to recommend the film.

I'm surprised how many people seem to want answers or to "learn" something from a movie though - especially this one. There are certain movies like that, where it's imperative that you have to know more at the end than the start for it to work. This doesn't seem like the intent of this movie at all.

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

it was pretty funny.

A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

[–] haynese_98 11 years ago

All the indicators I'm getting from HBO are that they are running out of stories and/or greenlighting bad ones. I'll watch The Girl in its entirety tonight and see if it's any better or worse than this Spector fiasco.

"There is no Hollywood any more, there's just a bunch of banks"

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

in that: toby jones as karl rove = emmmy worthy.

A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

[–] macktan894 11 years ago

I actually liked The Girl...much better than I did Hitchcock. I have a feeling that Toby Jones's portrayal of Hitchcock is much closer to the real life man than Anthony Hopkins'.

[–] macktan894 11 years ago

Well, if one doesn't learn anything, one should at least be entertained. This film was sad, creepy, and bizarre--it was also boring.

And god help us if we ever need a lawyer. I'm sure there are some good and ethical ones out there, but the ones depicted here simply took Spector's money, then abandoned him really. Of course, the man--as depicted here--was clearly off balance mentally. But you take a million or even $300 from someone for legal representation, you owe them that.

But that's off the point. This was some kind of horror movie of the kind that used to be shown at 2 am at the drive in along with Godzilla.

[–] howard849 11 years ago

Not aware of the running time or paying attention to how long it had been on, just when I thought it might be about to get good. Boom, it ended. Disappointed.

[–] lambiepie-2 11 years ago

This was some kind of horror movie of the kind that used to be shown at 2 am at the drive in along with Godzilla.

This...line...is..epic!

I could not have summed it up any better.

And the point is, years later, they are still remaking Godzilla. And they will still remake this. Why? Because just like Godzilla, this was horrific -- and we all still will never know what really...made Godzilla. Look at all the Godzilla pictures. Is it out to destroy Tokyo? Is it a he? A she?? Made by radiation and/or "the" bomb or something that was dormant for centuries? A dinosaur? A mutation? Does it like people? Children? Or did it wake up on the wrong side o the bed and just tramples Tokyo because it's trying to get somewhere to be left alone and people just keep messing with it!

All we know is that it's there, and haunting us for generations to come. Like Spector.

Retrain your brain!