The film is based on the murder trials of record producer, songwriter and musician Phil Spector, and premiered on HBO on March 24, 2013.

[2] The film was controversial for fictionalizing aspects of the case and for neglecting significant evidence that was presented by the real life prosecution, leading to accusations that the movie was created as an advocacy piece in Spector's favor.

Although it is based on real people and an actual event, it opens with an unusually worded disclaimer that states, "This is a work of fiction.

"[3] Mamet drew on court transcripts for portions of the film, and the movie discusses key pieces of evidence that were actually used at Spector's trial.

[4] Mamet called Spector "a fascinating speaker, and like a lot of us autodidacts, he was very interesting to listen to, because his mind ranged wide and unfettered by any system".

[4] Although Phil Spector is based on real people and an actual event, it opens with an unusually worded disclaimer that states, "This is a work of fiction.

"[6][7][8] In reviewing the movie, NPR's David Bianculli wrote that the opening disclaimer demands attention and, given Linda Kenney Baden's role as a consultant for the film, that, "even though her [Kenney Baden's] exchanges with the real Phil Spector are protected by attorney-client privilege, you get the feeling — at least I do — that Mamet may not be winging it as much as he claims to be with that disclaimer.

[9] In his June 2013 article in The Telegraph, Mick Brown wrote that "Phil Spector is a masterfully executed piece of drama.

"[2] Reviewing Phil Spector for Time Out, Ben Keningsberg wrote that the film makes "an essentially Socratic argument about the legal system's potential to try someone on perception", and that the real pleasure in watching the movie came from seeing Pacino and Mirren deliver Mamet's dialogue, which he described as including many "treasurable retorts".

"[6] In The New York Times, Alessandra Stanley had a more negative impression, saying that, in the film, "there isn't much to provide dramatic tension" between Pacino and Mirren, although it is a credit to them that "they can sustain a story with so little traction", adding that the scenes between Pacino and Mirren seem "a lot like a revisionist re-enactment and maybe even absolution" for Spector, with "the facts of the case and characters...molded to allow viewers to doubt Mr. Spector's guilt", although "there is not much anyone can do to make the audience care".

[11] Stanley describes Pacino as playing Spector as "palsied, choleric, and monomaniacal, but not entirely repellent", with "an occasional flash of self-awareness in his eyes and a glint of humored reason in his grandiose diatribes", and that Mirren's portrayal of Linda Kenney Baden, while "refined and regal", is nothing like the real-life Kenney Baden, who Stanley described as a "bleached-blonde scrapper".

[2] In his June 2013 article, Mick Brown claimed that when Phil Spector premiered on HBO in March 2013, "it achieved the rare feat of offending or upsetting just about everyone",[2] and that unspecified critics have termed it a "moral mess".

"[3] Addressing his own view of the Spector case more specifically, Mamet told The Financial Times in 2011, "Whether he did it or not, we'll never know, but if he'd just been a regular citizen, they never would have indicted him.

"[2] Mamet also dismissed Brown's concern that the film would mislead many viewers, who would assume it was an accurate depiction of history, and would never bother to look up the facts of the case, saying, "I'm entitled under the First Amendment to write whatever the hell I want, and if someone's fool enough to put it on television that's their problem.