User reviews

If you're thinking this film is about the trial of Phil Spector, it isn't. It does, however, contain a lot about preparing for the trial.

Helen Mirren is Linda Kenney Baden, who reluctantly takes on the murder case of Phil Spector, who is accused of killing Lana Clarkson in his home. Spector claims it was suicide.

Baden reluctantly finds herself believing him, as she performs a series of experiments that to her prove he could not have done it. Though trying to talk with Spector is very difficult, she also finds herself liking him.

This is a good character study, if a little on the slow side. It would have been dreadful without Mirren and Pacino, however. Pacino plays Spector as a pathetic has-been who brags about his past accomplishments as he sits isolated in his home,"The Castle." He loses his temper often and goes off on tangents. "Would I have lost everything for her?" he asks Mirren about Clarkson. Because of his crazy behavior and history with guns and women, Spector is in a lot of trouble.

The film brings us through the mock trial and Baden's attempts to have Spector take the stand to see if he can do it. It's a disaster. On the day of the trial, he shows up in a huge fright wig and looks terrifying. Baden has her work cut out for her.

Mirren is wonderful as a woman with a cold that turns into pneumonia who is nonetheless vigorous in her defense. The best scene is when she receives a suggestion from an associate. To illustrate a point, she shows a young attorney the yellow piece that used to go in the middle of a .45 record - he doesn't know what it is. She shows him a .45 record and he guesses, "something for the computer?" She turns to her associate and says, "None of these people are going to know what you're talking about." Mirren is masterful.

In the end, which is not part of the movie, the first trial was a mistrial, but Baden could not take part in the second trial and he was convicted.

This HBO movie is worth seeing for the performances. It is slow at times, but then again, it's not very long.

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.

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.

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.

Phil Spector (2013)

*** (out of 4)

David Mamet wrote and directed this bio-pic taking a look at the relationship between record producer Phil Spector (Al Pacino) and his defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren). The film starts off with a rather strange "warning" stating that this isn't based on a true story but inspired by the events of the case. I think it's pretty clear that Mamet feels that Spector was innocent in the crime, which he of course is sitting in prison for now. I'm not certain what the point of the movie was but it certainly works in terms of entertainment thanks to two great performances as well as a screenplay full of wonderful dialogue. I think the strongest thing going here are the performances and the screenplay. It should go without saying but both Pacino and Mirren are absolutely flawless in their performance and especially Pacino. If you're familiar with Spector then you know what a weird little man he was and I was really surprised to see how well Pacino pulled off the role. This isn't really a 100% mimic of Spector but instead Pacino really gets inside this guy and you do feel that we're seeing a real character and not just an actor playing a weird man. I found Pacino to be incredibly believable and especially during the scenes where his character goes into some frantic moments due to no one believing him. Mirren, who has to play the role sick, is also extremely good and comes across very strong. Jeffrey Tambor is also a lot of fun in his supporting role. Mamet's screenplay is full of that wonderful dialogue that he's best known for and I thought it really helped bring the lead character to life and help you understand him a bit more. I think those who feel that Spector is guilty are going to be upset with how they show him here but I found it to be quite interesting. The actual events of the case aren't really told in great detail and the courtroom stuff isn't what the movie is about. With that said, I'm really not sure what they were trying to do with the picture other than say Spector was convicted not because he murdered someone but because he's weird.

This is a frustrating Made-for-TV-Movie. It is so short in length that it leaves the viewer with a wanting for much more. There is so much potential untapped power here. The magnetic lead Actors, the always interesting and divisive Writer/Director David Mamet and of course, the legendary Music Producer, Phil Spector.

His unique blending of multi-tracked Music into what became known as the "Wall of Sound" was so impressive and unusual that he attracted clients as diverse as The Ronnetts, The Rightheous Brothers, Tina Turner, The Beatles, and The Ramones to name a few. He was labeled a Boy Genius.

All this adulation made him into a neurotic, reclusive, abusive, megalomaniac, arrogant, show-off, but he also made the best and greatest Music that filled the much needed gap between Elvis and The Beatles with his rich and beautiful Pop Songs. He also had very few friends and quite a few jealous enemies. When asked if he liked People, he responded..."I don't know, I've never spent any time with them".

This is just a very short Movie about the weeks before the beginning of his first trial for murdering his Date. So the insights into Spector are crammed in here and what is here is interesting, but ultimately just some footnotes of a life. His guilt or not in this snapshot of the trial ordeal is fascinating. But considering all that could have been it cannot help but be nothing but a well done tempting tease.

This is a fictionalized affair , which was widely talked about; the picture of Phil Spector in the film seems faithful to the details given by the biographies of artists who worked with him and to Mick Brown's absorbing story of this tycoon ," tearing down the wall of sound, the rise and fall of Phil Spector".Many of his great productions are heard in the film ,including those of the Ronettes,the Crystals ,the Righteous Bros ..... : the names of these artists are never mentioned (speaking of his ex-wife ,Ronnie: "I Found her in the gutter") .Spector did believe it was HIS records ,and he was not entirely wrong : his influence in the field of record producing is incalculable ,and is only rivaled by that of George Martin.He was a crazy genius . There's one mistake on the musical side: Spector never worked with the Beatles as a group ,he was given the "let it be "tapes ,every Fab Four buff knows the whole story.

Al Pacino's Spector is larger than life ; the scene when he insults his wife (whose intervention was recorded) is mind-boggling .Matching him every step of the way is Helen Mirren as his lawyer.

To be honest, I didn't make it all the way through this film -- which isn't saying much, considering the short running time. But based on what I did see, I agree with most of the posters here that it left me with a question mark over my head bigger than Al Pacino's afro. I will take any excuse to watch the likes of Pacino, Helen Mirren and Jeffrey Tambor act -- I love all three of them. So, when this hit an overall sour note with me, I was trying to figure out why. At the end of the day, I find Phil Spector so creepy, that I guess I couldn't stay interested in a film seemingly dedicated to showcasing his legal team and raising reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Even HBO couldn't save this, which is saying a lot. For me, the best part (and probably most telling) was the very clever subtitle: "The Truth is Somewhere in the Mix". I would say the point of this was somewhere in the mix, and if anyone finds it, please let me know.

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.

Pacino delivers another epic performance absolutely nailing Phil Spector. Helen Mirren was great. David Mamet's writing and dialog are absolutely brilliant.

Now, I don't know about the accuracy of the piece, but it is so powerfully convincing, I could believe it to be the truth. Whether or not was irrelevant to me as the film states upfront that it is not intended to be interpreted as an absolute representation of fact. I mean, the media is more propaganda than anything else, why would one 'expect' gospel truth from a movie?

With the predominance of Shlock in today's film world, I found this to be highly entertaining, I was completely absorbed and thoroughly enjoyed the ride it took me on.

Dramatization of events in the murder trial of once-famous record producer Phil Spector, who was accused in the shooting death of struggling actress Lana Clarkson in his Hollywood mansion in 2003. Cable offering from HBO Films (who open the movie with a disclaimer!) is a triumph for writer-director David Mamet, who succinctly examines the events of the case, coming up with no motive for murder on Spector's behalf. While typically over-the-top during the course of the proceedings, Al Pacino still manages to give a mesmerizing performance; his portrait of Spector is, by turns, strange, sad, deluded, self-amused and amusing, and utterly out of control. Spector is a lunatic, but does that make him a murderer? Mamet isn't so sure, and provides for us great food for thought. Helen Mirren, as defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden (with a nagging cold), is nearly as masterful as Pacino. Nominated for 11 Emmys, the film surprisingly came up empty-handed; nevertheless, a superlative achievement.

Since there's a disclosure at the beginning of this television movie that it's not a true story, nor is it based on a true story, but merely inspired by real events, it begs the question as to why it was made at all. If one was going to make a film about Phil Spector and what went on behind closed doors between him and his lawyer during his murder trials, wouldn't it be important to get the facts even remotely accurate? And if it truly was "inspiration", why not create fictional characters and a fictional title? The only answer I could come up with was for money and ratings; a real life person and a real life crime would get the attention, commercial sponsors, and ratings of a television audience.

There are plenty of people out there who love true crime stories, but I'm not one of them. If something horrible happened, I don't like exploiting it and passing it off as entertainment. Fictional stories about murders or other heinous crimes are tough enough to watch, without adding in the knowledge that what people have written, rehearsed, and filmed actually happened. With all that said, it's no wonder why I didn't enjoy watching Phil Spector. You might be wondering why I bothered watching it in the first place, and the answer is to appreciate the performances of Al Pacino and Helen Mirren. I'm a sucker for great acting and will sit through almost anything to honor and appreciate something that's very difficult to do. So, if you like Al, you can watch him give a very creepy performance that will have you searching for the nearest loofah, and if you like Helen, you can watch her being tough, disgusted, frightened, and honorable. Or, you can take my word for it and save yourself and upsetting ninety minutes.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to the upsetting subject matter, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Great talent. The best. Actors, writer, director. Awful result. The worst. Acting, writing, directing.

Even the best creative talent, even when already a mature artist, can deliver bad stuff. Happens. Happened.

Young screen writers are told to avoid, and how to avoid, "exposition." This TV movie was all exposition.

The lighting leaves most scenes murky, but murky does not substitute for mystery. Mystery, and suspense, ain't none.

It opens with an on-screen statement that, in effect, this is a free fictional invention based on the trial of Phil Spector. But closes with an on-screen statement that seems to be an actual summary of the trial outcome which is not in the film. Not sure if that's also a fictional element or reality.

February 3rd, 2003 Lana Clarkson was found dead in Phil Spector's home. She was shot and killed by a pistol at extremely close range. It was concluded that she was shot with the gun in her mouth. Did Phil kill her or did she kill herself? That's the million dollar question.

Al Pacino harkened back to his 1993 "Scent of a Woman" Oscar performance for this one. Not since his role as Jack Kevorkian in 2010 had I been this impressed with Pacino.

"Phil Spector" deals strictly with trial preparation for Spector's defense with his lawyer, Linda Kenney Baden (Helen Mirren). We see his interaction with her over a period of days or weeks almost as though we were tasked with judging his guilt or innocence based upon their conversations. He was a strange man, but most artists are.

I know next to nothing about Phil Spector, but I enjoyed Pacino's performance.

HBO Max.

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.

I came to this HBO production with some trepidation being aware that representatives of both the victim and the convicted had poured scorn on this production, but with a top cast and being written and directed by David Mamet, I had to watch.

"Hard to watch" more like, probably sums up my feelings about the movie. Spector to my mind was undoubtedly a production genius who had made some of the best records of the 60's - "Be My Baby", "You've Lost That Lovin Feeling" and "River Deep Mountain High" to name but three, not to mention his production duties for the Beatles, group and solo, but there's little doubt that he seemed to possess at the very least an eccentric and at worst a control-freak mentality which, given his predilection for guns, ended up with the tragic death of a woman named Lana Clarkson at his mansion retreat by a gunshot through the mouth.

I remember when the story broke and reading about the circumstances of her death thinking that Spector had to be guilty but when his replacement defence attorney Linda Kersey (Helen Mirren) picks up the case she finds aspects of the evidence which when skilfully presented at trial, at least seem to bring in some doubt over his guilt. The film takes us up to the end of the inconclusive first trial at which point Kersey finally surrenders to the pneumonia assailing her all through the movie and we learn through a closing credit sub-title that in her enforced absence, Spector, as we know of course, was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

However, the film is less concerned about the drama of the traditionally climactic courtroom scene than it is about examining the fragile state of mind of the crazed Spector and the efforts of Kersey to get through to him and find a way to defend him. That this seems to detract from considerations of the poor victim is a valid criticism, but as film entertainment, it's the scenes between Pacino and Mirren which undoubtedly work best.

For once, Pacino's acting, which has been in over-the-top self-caricature mode since "Scent Of A Woman", is actually suited to the mass of eccentricity that is Spector and he gives a compelling performance of this undoubtedly gifted but strange man with his sense of self-importance, mood-swings and frankly bizarre choice of wigs depending on his mood. Subtle it isn't but I was ultimately convinced by his performance as I gradually witnessed less Pacino and more Spector in his characterisation.

Mirren has to convey dogged determination combined with a legal lucidity as she tries to prise out a defence for her client, all the time struggling against her advancing illness and all this she does excellently. Arguably the skill of her acting steals some of Pacino's limelight but for me helps to ground the film more in reality, ultimately to its benefit.

The movie is however mis-titled, as viewers might be misled into thinking this was a bio-pic of some kind, rather than focusing purely on his murder trial. That carp apart, I was thoroughly engrossed by this well-acted, written and directed study of madness of a musical great and to a lesser degree, of the American legal system at work.

Pacino almost saves this, but the lame writing wins out in the end. This was not Mamet's finest hour imo, and one could certainly ponder why he chose this subject.

I'm thinking that Pacino and Mirren must have had a lot of faith in David Mamet when making this horrible movie. It must be difficult during the filming to assess the quality of the work; it's done in bits and pieces so you leave the vision in the director's hands. Still, they must have had a clue.

There is really nothing worth critiquing in this dark and sad film. There are no human emotions demonstrated among any of the characters, especially among the crew of lawyers whose aim, it seems to me, was to give Spector a defense he could pay a million dollars for.

If you want to see Pacino in a terrific role for his increasing age, see him in HBO's "I Don't Know Jack," about Jack Kevorkian. As for this film, all I can wonder is why on earth Mamet did it.

"This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon on the trial or its outcome." Above is the disclaimer that precedes David Mamet's Phil Spector. If I didn't know what to think of a biopic on the extreme eccentric character Spector was and remains, I really didn't know what to think after seeing that. This is a film that is just as enigmatic as its title figure, and earns its first strength by not judging, objectifying, or even shortchanging him despite his conviction. To make a biopic that lacks a viewpoint on its subject is a difficult, and often rare thing to do, yet the closer I look, the more I feel that Mamet made this film solely off of the fact that Spector is a compelling and unique figure.

For those unaware, Phil Spector was a renowned record producer in the sixties and seventies, known for helping The Ronettes, John Lennon, and The Ramones achieve untold heights with their music. Spector, himself, achieved notoriety in the public eye for being a true force of energy and uncompromising in his pursuit for greatness with his artists. In 2003, a woman named Lana Clarkson was found dead in his mansion from a gunshot wound through her mouth. Spector was quoted that night saying, "I think I killed somebody," and has had a known history with threatening violence to his girlfriends. But Spector's defense team has fought day-in and day-out to prove that it would be impossible for him to have committed the murder, due to the lack of evidence on crucial pieces (IE: lack of blood on his jacket).

Mamet decides to set his sights on the events preceding the first trial and the events of it, with Al Pacino assuming the role of Spector and Helen Mirren embodying Linda Kenney Baden, his attorney. The first act of the film focuses on the interworkings of Spector's defense team, where we see Baden and Bruce Cutler (Jeffrey Tambor) try to enact a plan for going about Spector's impending trial. Only until about twenty-minutes in do we see Spector, who is portrayed as a ruthless, foul-mouthed, arrogant, frustrated time-bomb on the verge of an implosion due to media scrutiny and constant false allegations. The film's most powerhouse scene comes when we first meet Spector, and him and Baden have a long, fifteen minute monologue together in Spector's luxurious mansion. During the course of it, the dialog is fast-paced, always engaging, and buoyed greatly by two terrific performers.

Pacino and Mirren unsurprisingly carry the film to heights it may not have seen had lesser performers been placed in their roles. Think of the drudgery that would've taken place had those two cinematic greats been swapped for second/third-rate performers in their first moderately big film. I'm already a tad shocked that Phil Spector has been sidelined to primetime programming on HBO, when it clearly has the names to make it to the theaters (besides Pacino, Mirren, and Mamet, director Barry Levinson is credited as producer). But I suppose the real question is, would this film have made it out of the theaters with its budget and then some? Is this a story that could be universally appealing? My answer is no, because Phil Spector is not a perfect film and is story could be viewed as mundane with the abundance of other courtroom dramas. The trouble the film runs into the most is its length; it feels like Mamet was given a specific runtime before he even started shooting the film and couldn't make it any longer or shorter than ninety-five minutes. For this reason, some scenes (take the courtroom ones) feel short and undercooked, and the ending wraps everything up untidily after the first trial, which was declared a mistrial. With the wealth of information on only Spector's case, but the possibilities that could've resulted because of Spector's true enigma and personality as a whole, a whole hour could've been attached on to the ending. It seems silly to hire big names like Pacino, Mirren, Tambor, and Mamet for an ambitious project, but only utilize them for ninety-five minutes entirely.

Even though the picture remains unbiased, it is a relatively unsurprising fact that both sides of the Spector case have been able to get fired up about some element in the film. Clarkson's family feels that she was portrayed in an overly dramatic, unstable manner, while Spector defenders say that the "time-bomb" personality Pacino generates on screen isn't accurate at all. The way I see it, you can judge Mamet on the way he portrays the characters here, but you can't say he takes sides here. Both sides seem to have truths to them, and neither of them are given cold hard facts.

Mamet conducts the picture fluently and interestingly, even offering something of a commentary on the current state of our legal system and how we may have a problem at judging personality over person or something along those lines. Pacino's embodiment of Spector is wholly memorable, Mirren provides the picture with true elegance, and the supporting performances are forbidden to tread the line of unimportance. It's just a shame the scope wasn't broader, and the story more inclusive.

NOTE: Phil Spector will be playing on HBO for the remainder of March and April.

Starring: Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, Jeffrey Tambor, and Matt Molloy. Directed by: David Mamet.

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.