geoff
Very Clean
Posts: 12
|
Post by geoff on Oct 15, 2008 21:32:31 GMT -5
Searched.but did not find.......
Has anyone seen this yet? Jared Leto,the singer from 30 Seconds To Mars, a fantastic vocalist by the way,pretty much carries this whole movie as the asshole who killed John. I still refuse to type his name,I will NOT aid his bid at notoriety. This is the movie that outraged fans because of the inclusion of Lindsey Lohan in a role. Actually,she did just fine and her role was minor,as this was basically a 1 man show.
Time and change has robbed my mind of some the the history, but I believe that this movie hits the details eerily on target.
While I have ZERO interest in glorifying this mutt of course,from a distanced view this movie was at once gripping, scary and a bit boring....until the end of course.
Would not buy for any reason, but a compelling single watch. Don't expect any Hollywood trickery,this is a very basic,single minded movie portraying one slip into madness. It will piss you off,disturb you, and make you wonder why NO ONE saw it coming, which is the saddest part of the whole thing......
This was either a dangerous career move for Jared Leto or a master stroke. Personally,I applaud his decision to take this role.He gained major weight, portrayed perhaps the most hated man since Hitler,and pulled it off in an eery performance that no one would probably want to see twice.
A MUST SEE movie,.....rent don't buy.
By the way,the disc said it was a Blockbuster Exclusive.......I rented it from Family Video. The BB logo was Sharpeed out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 4:44:46 GMT -5
From most of what I've read, it sucks as a film, and as of the moment I've also had no interest in seeing it, just on sheer principal.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 16, 2008 7:59:50 GMT -5
Has anyone seen this yet? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 16, 2008 8:40:27 GMT -5
I saw it on sale in Borders about a month ago and considered buying it but didn't. It was $10. If I see it for $5, I might.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 8:48:02 GMT -5
Being such a lifelong John Lennon fan especially at the time he was killed, I will admit I've always had a huge (and sometimes shameful)morbid curiosity about precisely everything that happened, exactly how and why (the latter of which never makes sense). I did buy the Jack Jones book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, which is about as detailed as you can get. But a motion picture, that's something else.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 16, 2008 13:17:28 GMT -5
From most of what I've read, it sucks as a film, and as of the moment I've also had no interest in seeing it, just on sheer principal. I'm anxious to see this movie. Glad this thread reminded me about it. Joe, what "principal"? Just wondering. Remember, this is coming from a Catholic boy who stared at Jesus Christ on the cross every week during mass, not to mention passing several representations of it on our walls at home.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 13:43:21 GMT -5
Making a huge spectacle out of it, which means a motion picture. I think it's great that it received such a limited release and slipped through the cracks. Practically nobody even knows about its existence.
Can you tell me who you are referring to as the "Catholic boy"? I'm assuming you mean Chapman...
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Oct 16, 2008 15:06:02 GMT -5
From most of what I've read, it sucks as a film, and as of the moment I've also had no interest in seeing it, just on sheer principal. I'm anxious to see this movie. Glad this thread reminded me about it. Anxious to see it as well. It is what it is. Apparently a bio of Chapman. For those of you who have a tough time dealing with Chapman, get a reality check. He made history as did any other assassin has also done when killing important or famous people. This in turn is gonna lead to such films and documentaries. As long as Chapman does not benefit in any financial way, I don't see any problem with this kind of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 16, 2008 16:05:38 GMT -5
I'm anxious to see this movie. Glad this thread reminded me about it. Anxious to see it as well. It is what it is. Apparently a bio of Chapman. For those of you who have a tough time dealing with Chapman, get a reality check. He made history as did any other assassin has also done when killing important or famous people. This in turn is gonna lead to such films and documentaries. As long as Chapman does not benefit in any financial way, I don't see any problem with this kind of stuff. I don't need a constant reminder of what the jerk of all jerks did. I subscribe to Victor Spinetti's suggestion at a mid-80's Beatles' Convention where we don't mention his name or acknowledge him and regulate him to the position of a nonentity, thus robbing him of the attention and fame he craved just like he robbed Yoko, Sean, Julian and us of John.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 16:13:19 GMT -5
I'm anxious to see this movie. Glad this thread reminded me about it. Anxious to see it as well. It is what it is. Apparently a bio of Chapman. For those of you who have a tough time dealing with Chapman, get a reality check. He made history as did any other assassin has also done when killing important or famous people. This in turn is gonna lead to such films and documentaries. As long as Chapman does not benefit in any financial way, I don't see any problem with this kind of stuff. I've done my reality check, many times over for the past 28 years. I've read the Jack Jones book which tries to get inside the head of that moron. There have already been documentaries on this as well. Even if there is no profit being made, how about the killer (and Fred is right - I shouldn't be using his name either, and I'll have to try doing that) getting what he wanted - fame and popularity for murdering "a big somebody"? That was his goal at the time. It's what he gets when there are movies made about him. Money or no money. So it's not about hiding from the reality of what happened; it's about not giving the killer what he killed John to get.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 16, 2008 18:00:52 GMT -5
Making a huge spectacle out of it, which means a motion picture. I think it's great that it received such a limited release and slipped through the cracks. Practically nobody even knows about its existence. Can you tell me who you are referring to as the "Catholic boy"? I'm assuming you mean Chapman... No, I mean me. The crucifix and its combination of the worst of suffering and the best in sacrifice was a constant in my life. I've never had a problem directly considering man's worst impulses or his best. And his worst impulses generally make for the greatest tragedies. All this hocus pocus about not mentioning the name of Lennon's killer reminds of kids role-playing Harry Potter. Mark Chapman shot and killed John Lennon on Dec. 8, 1980, in New York City. That's a fact, not a glorification of anyone. I can't wait to see the movie.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 16, 2008 22:51:39 GMT -5
I recently watched Chapter 27 and it is variously disturbing, upsetting and heartbreaking but always fascinating. Then again, so was the actual event upon which this movie is based.
I think that it is a story that needed to be told. Jared Leto does an excellent job in portraying Chapman and even gained 40 plus pounds for the role. Lindsay Lohan is good in her role as a fellow Lennon fan who hangs out in front of the Dakota to see John and who strikes up a semi-friendship with Chapman. Lohan's role as Jude is fictional but everything else about this movie seems to be based on the facts as all of us have read through the years.
To have this all played out on film is hard to take at times, especially the murder scene although this is a drama and not about gore and special effects. It was filmed right in front of the Dakota at the very place where that infamous event took place. That was absolutely fascinating and gives the viewer a good layout of the setting.
Chapman is not played sympathetically and in fact is very unlikeable, so much so that I had trouble believing that the Jude character would even befriend him. Jude is there because she really believes in the message of John's music. She is a sincere fan like us(although it was evident that she often hung around the Dakota so how normal could that be?)while Chapman is there for the opposite reason: he is conflicted and torn, part of him wanting to believe that John was real while the stronger part of him believing that John was a phoney who needed to die.
Chapman is portrayed as mentally ill, fighting the voices in his head as what to do. I don't doubt that Chapman fought such demons. I do think that Chapman always knew that what he intended to do was wrong but that he was unable to stop himself.
As Jared Leto said, the actors and filmakers were all fans of John's and the Beatles' and did not want to do anything to diminish the tragedy this was to John's family and really the world.
The film focuses on Chapman's state of mind and actions from Dec. 6 through Dec 8. All of us here have read the accounts of what happened and what this guy did in those days leading up to the murder but seeing it depicted on film is unnerving but it is exactly how I've had it in my mind since the first days afterwards when details started coming out.
Still, a compelling film at 1 hour, 20 minutes. I am glad that I saw it. I respect those who won't watch it. I felt that I should.
8 out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 16, 2008 23:10:00 GMT -5
John, thanks for the review. I might find time to rent it this weekend in Chicago. Our little store here doesn't have it, but I've seen it at Blockbuster in the suburbs.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 6:05:22 GMT -5
Making a huge spectacle out of it, which means a motion picture. I think it's great that it received such a limited release and slipped through the cracks. Practically nobody even knows about its existence. Can you tell me who you are referring to as the "Catholic boy"? I'm assuming you mean Chapman... No, I mean me. The crucifix and its combination of the worst of suffering and the best in sacrifice was a constant in my life. I've never had a problem directly considering man's worst impulses or his best. And his worst impulses generally make for the greatest tragedies. All this hocus pocus about not mentioning the name of Lennon's killer reminds of kids role-playing Harry Potter. Mark Chapman shot and killed John Lennon on Dec. 8, 1980, in New York City. That's a fact, not a glorification of anyone. I can't wait to see the movie. I believe in recording history too and waking up and smelling the coffee, however bitter. I do not try to shun any facts. Hell, I've got 5 videotapes worth of the tragic news coverage from 12/8 and 12/9 1980 in my collection, as part of devastating byt factual Beatles-related history... But no matter how you slice it, how can you deny that the killer WANTED to be popular,and that this only gives him more exposure and fame, constantly making TV shows and movies about him, and making sure the world knows his name and says it regularly? What are you talking about -- "hocus pocus"? It's not hocus pocus or "living in denial" --- it has to do with not wanting to play right into the hands and give a murderer precisely what he craved. He murderd John Lennon to "be somebody, instead of a big nobody". You're doing everything in your power to give him that, and sanctioning other sources which do the same. Think about that and don't think of it as "being superstitious, afriad, or in denial".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 6:26:14 GMT -5
Lindsay Lohan is good in her role as a fellow Lennon fan who hangs out in front of the Dakota to see John and who strikes up a semi-friendship with . Lohan's role as Jude is fictional but everything else about this movie seems to be based on the facts as all of us have read through the years. No, John. The character of Jude is very real. I even have the woman interviewed in the newsroom studio somewhere back in the 1980 news footage. Even the killer has discussed his meetings with her. I haven't seen the movie, but Jude (name and all) is the real deal, and from what I've heard, the events in the film follow the Jack Jones book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN pretty straight-forwardly. Yes, I bought that book way back when. It painstakingly goes through every detail of what happened, and is basically compiled from all the taped recollections the killer told to Jack Jones. That's the foundation on which the movie is based. If it sounds like I'm being hypocritical by getting the book but not supporting the movie, the answer is simple. No money went to the killer from the book either (as is said with the movie) but this particular book slipped past everyone and is unknown, and does not give as much attention as a motion picture. The world at large isn't even aware of the Jack Jones book. Let's face it, Joe Six Packs rarely read; they see the movie. I guess in a way the same thing (fortunately) can be said of CHAPTER 27, as it's a flop that got practically no release, thankfully. Over at the movie website "Internet Movie Database", it has gotten over 2,200 votes by viewers and only has a mid-range average rating of 5.5 out of 10 . Well, that's what actually happened. Same thing with Paul Goresh the photographer, at least for a time. But movies do take liberties, so my advice is that if you want to know the facts, the book is the way to go. It is eerily fascinating to get into a madman's mind and hear everything that went down from his perepective. Especially if you, like me, have an unsatiated if twisted desire as a John Lennon fan to know exactly how things went down, and maybe to even try to learn "why". Kind of like someone hurting someone you feel is somehow close to you and wanting answers. I only wish that I had been more accustomed to going into Manhattan more routinely at that point of my life (I was only 18 in 1980). I have no doubt that if I'd persevered and frequented the Dakota I would have been able to meet John, maybe even get an autograph. You don't accomplish special things like that by just staying home to "appear stable". It is ironic that it was John's death itself that pushed me into going into Manhattan by train and visiting the Dakota and going to the Central Park Vigil afterward. From that point on, I would meet other celebrities I'd long admired over the years by going into the city. I have a lot of great memories, photos, and autographs from that and wouldn't take it back for anything. Not even to be considered "normal", whatever that means. Well, that's why I read the Jack Jones book. Somehow I felt I should, I wanted to know everything. And I've still had the occasional curiosity of seeing the movie. But to me, reading the book that goes through each and every detail - not only from 12/6 to 12/8, but in all the years before that - is more comprehensive and doesn't "glorify" things the way a motion picture tends to.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 17, 2008 10:16:44 GMT -5
No, John. The character of Jude is very real. I even have the woman interviewed in the newsroom studio somewhere back in the 1980 news footage. Even the killer has discussed his meetings with her. I haven't seen the movie, but Jude (name and all) is the real deal, and from what I've heard, the events in the film follow the Jack Jones book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN pretty straight-forwardly. I stand corrected. I read that off a review from Netflix and I was thinking perhaps Lohan's role was a composite of two women who got to talking to Chapman over those three days. That fact makes me like the movie more if Jude was real. Good. I don't think that at all. I respect your stance. I don't feel that I am supporting the movie so much as I wanted to see what it was about. I am glad I watched it. I was originally suspecting that the movie's aim was to make me feel sorry for and want to embrace Chapman. It does not do that and in fact it made me dislike him more now(even though it fairly portrays the mental instability he undoubtedly was suffering) than I even did before. He was a creep at the least. Me too but this Jude had obviously met John numerous times but kept coming back for more. She even knew Sean and his nanny by name and though Jude's intentions were not dangerous, that starts to be creepy to me. This Jude was missing out on her life trying to ingratiate herself into John's. The movie portrayed the large number of people who were daily hanging around the Dakota trying to meet John and that hit home with me because some of the people shown looked like that dirty hippie from the film Imagine. I'll hunt down the Jones book, Joe. I had once bought a book claiming that the C.I.A. killed John by brainwashing Chapman or something to that effect and I only got a third through before I was turned off by it.
|
|
geoff
Very Clean
Posts: 12
|
Post by geoff on Oct 17, 2008 23:43:04 GMT -5
Interesting opinions across the board. I don't know how much access this mutt has to the world but I doubt he is sitting in his cell browsing this page,so personally I don't think watching this movie or discussing it here gains him anything.
No one here is wrong,but to dismiss this without viewing it first is pointless.
Also,anyone hanging around a building waiting to meet a celebrity is a bit scary,if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 6:25:50 GMT -5
Interesting opinions across the board. I don't know how much access this mutt has to the world but I doubt he is sitting in his cell browsing this page,so personally I don't think watching this movie or discussing it here gains him anything. You'd be surprised how much access creeps like him have to everything. As far as I'm concerned, when someone like him is jailed for a murder, he should be in a tiny cell with no windows and no access to anything but bread and water for the rest of his life. As far as the killer is concerned, he should still think it's 1980 where he last saw the light of day and not even know that life's progressed in the world since that last day he walked the Earth. As a big movie fan let me assure you that I don't officially judge or rate the quality of a movie without having seen it myself first. If I were to see the movie I may think it was great; or I may think it was terrible. But my saying that I have made a choice not to see a film on principle is not the same as dismissing its quality as a film. All I have said is that its general reputation is mediocre, based on the majority of voters on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). Suit yourself. There are obsessed nuts with no life who may be dangerous who stalk and hang out at a celebrity's building, and then there are people like me who are no threat and are happy to say they've gotten Paul McCartney's autograph.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 8:13:20 GMT -5
Hey gang - guess what movie I saw last night? YUP... fate turned that way. But here's how it happened:
My wife is away for a week, along with my sister. So my brother in law and I are pretty much staying home by ourselves, and he asked me to go to his house for dinner and then to watch the baseball playoffs last night (Redsox vs. Rays) at 8:00.
So we ate dinner and 8:00 arrives, and there is no ball game yet. We searched all over the TV but couldn't find it... was there a rain delay, or what? So my brother in law - who's manning the remote - asked me if I wanted to watch a movie. Frankly, I had original other tentative plans with one of my friends and we were going to possibly watch a movie, but since nothing was finalized, I opted to give up the friend option and watch a baseball game with my brother in law instead. So a movie was the LAST thing I wanted to do -- I could have done this with my friend!!!
So my brother in law scrolls down movie choices on his "Movies On Demand" screen, and none of them appeals to me. Finally, I see CHAPTER 27 listed, and I say "oh - Chapter 27's the movie about the guy who killed John Lennon". He asked if I'd seen it before, and I said No. Well, before I knew it, my brother in law hit the button and the movie came on. And as the opening credits began, I kept thinking about this board and what I'd have to answer for the next morning!
As for the movie itself -- I thought it sucked big time. No, not because of the basic "sin" that it was a movie about the killing of John Lennon. Believe me, if I'd thought it was a good or serviceable film in any way which really captured the aura of the tragic event, then I'd eat the crow and say so. But I'd already heard a lot of reviewers say it was kind of weak tea, and that's how it struck me. I thought that Leto in the role of Chapman (I'll use the name here) was physically a good choice, with him having put on all the weight and so on. But as someone myself who's heard Chapman's voice over the years, in documentaries and on shows like 20/20 and Larry King (yup, for historical purposes and the need to try and make logic out of the murder I have watched them) I thought his faux southern voice was pretty bad. It was so obviously put on and he slipped in and out of it, emphasizing it more at certain times than others.
First, some admittedly trivial and anal things -- what bugged me throughout the film were all kinds of mistakes. Things like the Dakota building looming as it stands now - all clean and light tan-looking in color, when in reality back in 1980 it was filthy with grimey black soot of the ages, which had made it even more macbre-looking to fit the unfolding scenario. Now, don't get me wrong - I realize this is an oversight practically nobody noticed or cared about, and I didn't expect the filmmakers to REBUILD the Dakota! But as someone myself who is from New York and visited the Dakota both in 1980 and after, I was always reminded this was not 1980, every time I saw the building.
There's a scene where Chapman goes into a shop and buys the PLAYBOY magazine with John's current interview. Well, the magazine here is NOT called PLAYBOY; it's something else not even remotely of a similar title. And later, when he sets up the dresser in his hotel room with all sorts of his personal mementos, it's a tiny WIZARD OF OZ postcard he picked up in the store. In reality, he used an actual movie lobbycard from the film, and it was especially poignant in a twisted way, because in reality it was a favored shot of Dorothy wiping away the tears from the Cowardly Lion. Apparently, for the film, they figured anything with the name "Wizard Of Oz" would do. Same holds true for the cover of the DOUBLE FANTASY album... it's another staged pic and not the real album. Now, of course I realize that all these substitutions were probably due to "rights" issues. Good for those who refused permission, I'd say - if the filmmakers even bothered to try to ask them.
The biggest problem with this movie, all quibbling done, is that it's DULL AS DISH WATER!! There is no attempt made to really get into the psyche of Chapman, or maybe I feel that way because I've read the Jack Jones book of interviews and talks on which this movie was based, and so much just did not come through or get covered. There still could have been a way to run through these events and handle them in a more intense style of a more escalating manner. The way the movie came off to me was like when you see a cheap TV show re-enactment, and none of the actors are really convincing, and it's obvious that it's just what it is - A RE-ENACTMENT. It was like bad documentary making. Lindsay Lohan might just as well not have been in the film, considering how her character of the fan Jude is rarely featured and there's no real drama in her scenes with the killer. I have seen an interview with the real Jude from back in the day, by the way, and Lindsay looks like Raquel Welch next to her.
I've looked up the credits for writer/director J.P. Schaefer and this appears to be his very first film - and why am I not surprised? This thing looks and feels like someone's very first attempt at a film class project. Totally amateurish and empty.
Even though this is not a fictional movie, you know how people sometimes say "The Book Was Better!" when talking about some films? Well, that certainly applies here. The book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN was more disturbing, more concise, more dramatic, and much more informative on every level. It also takes us down deeper into Chapman's twisted mind, for whatever reasons one might care to delve. (For me it was in desperate search of some kind of reasoning or understanding). Well, I never found that, but the book is a fascinating read. The movie is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 19, 2008 8:52:24 GMT -5
Thanks for the concise review, Joe. I've gotten the same impression of the film from other reviews and from the fact that it was a box office flop speaks volumes about it's quality, or in this case, lack of. Just bolsters my resolve to not watch it and waste my time. It appears it doesn't shed any additional light on the subject that we don't already know, or care to.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 9:18:39 GMT -5
You said it in a nutshell, Fred. Whether it should have been made or not is one thing; but what came out of it is a pile of nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 20, 2008 22:21:59 GMT -5
. . . Same holds true for the cover of the DOUBLE FANTASY album... it's another staged pic and not the real album. Now, of course I realize that all these substitutions were probably due to "rights" issues . . . I'm watching it right now. It was already in progress and THAT was the first thing I noticed. In fact, it kinda looked like a early 1960s George kissing Yoko, not John. . . . just 15 minutes more into the movie and the photographer Paul is introduced. Looks like a fat apple scruffy Paul McCartney.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 20, 2008 22:51:10 GMT -5
Everyone who went to see this movie, paid money either for a ticket or to rent it, or to watch it on Pay TV, well, most of that money went to the studio that produced the film, thereby possibly (hopefully not) giving them a profit on the movie. Was it worth it to you? Were you entertained by the subject matter? Do you know that the animal who perpetrated the heinous act still lives in his cage at Attica and is aware the film was made and people are watching it? That is just what his demented mind wants to know; he is now on the big screen forever immortalized for killing John. Yes, it is a historical fact what happened. But as long as the animal still lives and breathes, do you really want to give him any more satisfaction that he achieved his demented goal of being immortalized by committing the act? John's memory deserves better than that. Sure, there are films and books about Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, and James Earl Ray. But at least they are now dead and cannot enjoy the "fruits" of their sick acts in print, or in movies, etc. Why anyone would want to view this particular movie is beyond me. Especially fans of John and The Beatles. I see not one good reason to watch it. But people are going to see it. And Beatlefans at that. Wow. When some demented studio producer decides to make a film of George's attacker breaking into Friar Park in 1999 to repeatedly stab George in an attempt to put himself in the history books alongside John's killer, I suppose some people will be sure to view that film as well. Amazing what passes for entertainment in some people's eyes..... Subject closed.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 21, 2008 0:11:31 GMT -5
How dare you!
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 21, 2008 0:31:01 GMT -5
dumb question, why is it called Chapter 27 ?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 21, 2008 0:37:03 GMT -5
dumb question, why is it called Chapter 27 ? No problem. "Catcher in the Rye" has 26 chapters.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 21, 2008 6:43:52 GMT -5
Everyone who went to see this movie, paid money either for a ticket or to rent it, or to watch it on Pay TV, well, most of that money went to the studio that produced the film, thereby possibly (hopefully not) giving them a profit on the movie. Was it worth it to you? Were you entertained by the subject matter? Do you know that the animal who perpetrated the heinous act still lives in his cage at Attica and is aware the film was made and people are watching it? That is just what his demented mind wants to know; he is now on the big screen forever immortalized for killing John. Yes, that's it exactly. It's not just about the killer getting money or anything; it's about his own personal satisfaction. He knows he's famous, he knows he's made a mark, he knows this movie has been made, and that his name is more well-known as a result of it. All I can do is be honest. From the day John was killed I was devastated and found myself always trying to find out "why? why? why"?, and also -- perhaps rather bizarrely, I always replayed the scenario in my head, tried to figure out all the details that went on, and how it all transpired. I can't explain it... all I know is that as a Lennon fan I wanted to know everything, kind of like how I think I'd be if someone took away someone close to me like a friend or family member, maybe trying to find some kind of closure. I got all of that from the Jack Jones book, which was far more comprehensive than this movie and which isn't as easily flaunted in front of the killer as something like a motion picture, which many more average people are aware of. A book can slip through the cracks, not so much a movie. (Though it's a great thing that CHAPTER 27 got virtually no release and is pretty obscure, as it worked out. And the overall critique of the movie is mediocre at best, as a whole). I wasn't intending to see this film on principal, but as I detailed in my post, things just happened. Of course I didn't HAVE to stay and watch... but I'd already heard it was a failure at accomplishing its goal (according to most critics) so I didn't think it was that bad to go through with it at the last minute. I'm also glad it was called CHAPTER 27... this is a title that's so undefined that nobody would know it's about the clown who killed John Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by mrjinks on Oct 21, 2008 8:29:21 GMT -5
Just an aside here: there's ANOTHER movie on the same subject that came out at approximately the same time; I believe it's called "The Killing of John Lennon". I've seen both of these on the shelves at my local Blockbuster and passed them by, for some of the reasons mentioned here. However, I understand those who've chosen to watch the movies, too...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 21, 2008 12:36:32 GMT -5
Yup, you're right, mrjinks. I knew about it but deliberately didn't mention it. I figured it was only a matter of time before it came up, though.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 22, 2008 12:03:44 GMT -5
Yup, you're right, mrjinks. I knew about it but deliberately didn't mention it. I figured it was only a matter of time before it came up, though. There you go, hocus pocus again. What do you feel like, some Catcher in the Rye with this or something? Joe, don't pretend you're the gatekeeper of anything here. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon and achieved his goal, fame (if that's what he wanted) on Dec. 8, 1980, and during the following days. It's ridiculous to think he's going to become more famous. It's done. His name is out there. Nothing to be scared of. I bought the movie used Saturday in Chicago and watched it that night. It was ordinary, not terrible. What impressed me the most was the portrayal (and the truth, I believe) of how ordinary Chapman was. He was nothing special. He's not worth name-calling or name-denying.
|
|