"Phil Spector", Wall of Muted Sound

Phil Spector
It's quite strange. Being objective, "Phil Spector" doesn't have any big flaw. Good acting, a serious script, and a point of view that wants to offer something different, something more: a trial film no focused on the trial itself (something that would had been very dear to Hollywood), a drama without willing to "sell the drama" or win thanks to its impact, and a look to fame quite distant from the cliche-prone that celebrity biopics tend to be. But despite the remarkable virtues, the film is quite empty, lifeless.

Now go figure, the movie is about Phil Spector, a myth now in jail, a music producer legend transformed into the perfect example of an eccentric celebrity wasted away. What a potentially irresistible candy this could be in the hands of a greedy producer or/and an ambitious director. But that's not the case, prestigious director and writer David Mamet transforms a potential blockbuster into a radically unexpected proposal. A pretty obscure investigation/analysis of the clash between society and justice: was Spector convicted because a murder or because his fame and odd lifestyle?

And to show the dilemma Mamet delivers a script heavy on dialogues to two heavyweight actors: Helen Mirren and Al Pacino. To be honest, I was expecting nothing but another solid performance from Mirren and she doesn't disappoint in her role of defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden, but I was quite scared with Pacino, thinking that with such an eccentric and extreme character he could create another abomination like his Tony Montana (sorry Brian de Palma fans, not my cup of tea, to be polite), grotesque and annoying. But on the contrary, Pacino's Spector seems real, the rage episodes balancing admirably with the fragile looks of a wasted old man. Frustration and ego dramatically colliding on a person that really believes he should be treated like the legend he is.

Indeed, the elements are there, but the movie never really grabs you. It's a very cold movie, probably too analytic and little rewarding for the viewer. But aside from the emotional, then subjective, factors, the fact is "Spector" doesn't go further on the actual events of the case, there's zero detail about what went on court, which might be a brave or at least coherent move from Mamet. The director wanted to depict the relation between the music producer and his attorney while pointing out the "shadows" of a process too full of other elements than just the need to clarify if there was evidence enough to condemn Phil Spector as the murder of Lana Clarkson, but really ruins the whole point about the film. Once the trial begins, the film ends, so the spectator has the feeling the he has been watching the whole preparation of the trial just to be left without it. The way the whole thing concludes makes Mamet's proposal look biased and incomplete. This shouldn't be called "Phil Spector", but rather "The Phil Spector's defense preparations". That's enough to make a solid film? I have some serious doubts about it...

SCORE: 5,75/10

"Hitchcock", zero suspense, dull biopic

Hitchcock

Biopics can be a real torture or, when memorable, a fantastic excuse to discover or re-connect with the film's subject. But there's a third "category", which is usually the most common: a movie that leaves you completely indifferent. Not annoying, but really insipid. "Hitchcock" could be the perfect example. Reminded me to "My Week with Marilyn". Take a cultural myth/icon and put it on an unsubstantial movie.

In this sort of films, it doesn't really matter if you are a fan or a hater, because there's not a real attempt of offering any insight of the biopic's character. That is the case of "Hitchcock". Worse, this film doesn't want to talk about the way Sir Alfred Hitchcock approached cinema, being labelled as the "Master of Suspense" (not me). Doesn't aim to show his peculiar relations with her cast (particularly women), wife, or studios. Doesn't pretend to offer any real tension or obsessions. It's just a expensive tv movie, suitable to anyone. Entertaining enough to keep you going, but nothing else.

"Hitchcock" biggest failure is the lame plot. The whole movie is focused on the director's battle to make "Psycho". Yep, director Sacha Gervasi probably believed that having such a movie classic (not for me) as the plot's subject he didn't have to care about the screenplay. Wrong. From the very beginning we are in front of a game of incoherencies, plotholes. Gervasi chooses a supposedly very dramatic scene that should justify why Hictchcock needed to do "Psycho"... forgetting that before that moment all we had was a triumphant director presuming of their latest success, "North by Northwest". Gervasi gives Vera Miles a shot, on which we assume there was a very "special" issue regarding her relation with the director, then her character gets almost abandoned. I could go on. And the nightmarish scenes on which Alfred "lives" inside the novel that inspired the film are ridiculous.  

With such an empty script, what keeps the movie alive is the marital/work tension between Alfred and his wife Alma. Not because it has any particular strength, but at least it does have coherency and a very solid actress, Helen Mirren, carrying the weight of the film on her reliable shoulders. The rest of the impressive cast does what they can. Good actors on secondary roles like Toni Collette or Michael Wincott have very unrewarding lines. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles have barely no space to be more than mannequins. On a side note, its a crime that two of the most beautiful actresses look that unattractive on screen. 

And of course, Anthony Hopkins as the "great man himself". Well, he looks like a perfect caricature of the man. You can put all the prosthetics you can, gain weight, and perfect voice and mannerisms as much as you can. That will only mean a fantastic recreation of the person's aesthetics. But you still need a direction, a purpose, a turmoil to get the character alive. Hopkins tries, and as the gifted actor he is, he saves dozens of scenes... but it's still an artifice. He is the epitome of the whole movie, pointless, weak, lifeless. Doesn't harm, but save it just for killing time.  

SCORE: 5/10