|
Post by patnurk on Oct 26, 2008 16:46:18 GMT -5
In my film reviewing job, I got in trouble for putting my personal feelings within the context of this review (link below). www.hollywoodchicago.com/reviews/2245/considering-sore-subject-matter-of-chapter-27-why-is-only-plausible-reactionThe original opening, read like this... >As a contemporary of the John Lennon assassination in 1980 and an ardent admirer of the late Beatle, I had a hard time figuring out the reasons for making the film “Chapter 27.” Over the years it has been difficult, if not impossible, to forgive Mark David Chapman for his wasteful act of murdering Lennon, so why relive the agony through an oblique film exercise and reference to “The Catcher in the Rye,” the novel Chapman was reading when captured by police after the shooting?< My editor changed it when a few people complained about my personal "bias" toward the film. Did anybody out there see it? I'd like to hear feedback.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 26, 2008 21:08:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 2, 2008 8:38:00 GMT -5
In my film reviewing job, I got in trouble for putting my personal feelings within the context of this review (link below). www.hollywoodchicago.com/reviews/2245/considering-sore-subject-matter-of-chapter-27-why-is-only-plausible-reactionThe original opening, read like this... >As a contemporary of the John Lennon assassination in 1980 and an ardent admirer of the late Beatle, I had a hard time figuring out the reasons for making the film “Chapter 27.” Over the years it has been difficult, if not impossible, to forgive Mark David Chapman for his wasteful act of murdering Lennon, so why relive the agony through an oblique film exercise and reference to “The Catcher in the Rye,” the novel Chapman was reading when captured by police after the shooting?< My editor changed it when a few people complained about my personal "bias" toward the film. As a film lover I'm personally of the belief that any individual's crtique of a film is SUPPOSED to be his own take on it, including whatever personal feelings/bias/beliefs he has. If this wasn't the case we would not require different critics in this world; every review for every film ever made would simply be ONE "correct" way of approaching the movie. I think it can help to be somewhat objective too. I would have given CHAPTER 27 kudos if it had been good in any way, but I hated it because it was bland and very badly made in just about every way.
|
|
|
Post by rockwizard on Feb 1, 2009 19:25:34 GMT -5
Why even mention the scumbag's name to give him attention. Let him rot in hell. That is one thing I loved about the U. S. vs. Lennon movie, his name was NEVER mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 1, 2009 21:13:17 GMT -5
Why even mention the scumbag's name to give him attention. Let him rot in hell. That is one thing I loved about the U. S. vs. Lennon movie, his name was NEVER mentioned. It was about his mindset. What I've seen of it didn't glorify at all. Made him look pretty much a loser.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 1, 2009 22:55:42 GMT -5
Why this subject continues to be a thread on a Beatles website amazes me. I think even discussing it is an insult to John's memory.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 2, 2009 1:12:19 GMT -5
Why this subject continues to be a thread on a Beatles website amazes me. I think even discussing it is an insult to John's memory. Certainly, the act is disgusting. But the guy's a low class jerk and I don't think a study of his mindset is improper. You can choose to pass on it, which most Beatle fans did. I rented the DVD from Netflix and watched part of it. Not a fantastic movie or even a very good one. But I was interested in seeing how he was portrayed. I didn't understand why Lindsey Lohan, who knows Sean, bothered with it. The scene of John being shot was wrenching. I thought they exploited the scene when they could have been more sensitive, especially given they knew the movie wouldn't be received well.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 2, 2009 12:59:58 GMT -5
Why this subject continues to be a thread on a Beatles website amazes me. I think even discussing it is an insult to John's memory. Certainly, the act is disgusting. But the guy's a low class jerk and I don't think a study of his mindset is improper. You can choose to pass on it, which most Beatle fans did. I rented the DVD from Netflix and watched part of it. Not a fantastic movie or even a very good one. But I was interested in seeing how he was portrayed. I didn't understand why Lindsey Lohan, who knows Sean, bothered with it. The scene of John being shot was wrenching. I thought they exploited the scene when they could have been more sensitive, especially given they knew the movie wouldn't be received well. I did not think the movie glorified Chapman either. I found the movie interesting and the actor who played Chapman put a lot of effort into his role, even gaining weight to look like Chapman on 12/08/80. It was a terrible event but it happened and movies are often made of historical events however tragic. If anything, the movie would tend to remove any sympathy one might have for MDC because of his mental demons. The narrative was apparently from things Chapman has actually written or uttered and he really was a self-absorbed creep. At the end of the day, he knew what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway. I also thought the movie was helpful in conveying the layout of the Dakota's exterior where this tragedy occurred. It was filmed outside the Dakota so I could finally see the entranceway to better understand the logistics of where the limo parked, where John had to walk, where Chapman was. I had only seen photos or old news clips of the scene. I am appalled that Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were killed but it is part of U.S. history and I have read many books on both subjects and watch the documentaries that are readily available because it is interesting to me. John's murder was a tragic part of Beatles' history so it will be recorded historically and depicted in film.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 10, 2009 17:22:55 GMT -5
Here is my review, where I did have to mention the guy's name:
CHAPTER 27 (2007) - BOMB
Hey, my first "BOMB" rating this whole year - and how fitting a recipient! I thought this sucked big time. No, not merely because as a John Lennon fan I consider it a sin that this tragic event was glorified into a feature-length film; 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 vapid, and that's certainly how it struck me.
The movie supposedly focuses on obsessed fan Mark David Chapman's three day stint slumming around New York City from Hawaii, and the personal demons he tackles while planning to murder ex-Beatle John Lennon, in December 1980. I say "supposedly' because there is nothing interesting cinematically to try and turn an essentially plot-less story into something with a drive or purpose. The feature is based on a book by Jack Jones, called LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN. In it, Jones managed to get into the warped heard of a complex murderer and offered up many transcripts of detailed talks with Chapman. Jones' was the superior work, if there can be such a thing on a subject as dire as this.
I thought that Jared Leto in the role of Chapman 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 news 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 grimy black soot of the ages, which had made it even more macabre-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 lobby card 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 either, but the book is still a fascinating read, I must concede. The movie is garbage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 4:19:58 GMT -5
I just watched Chapter 27....
Chapman was/is a real fruit loop....
He should never be released,he'll always be a sandwich short of a picnic.....
The scene where the sick Fuck shot John.....was that filmed at the Dakota...is that what the entrance looks like....
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 20, 2009 12:05:30 GMT -5
I just watched Chapter 27.... Chapman was/is a real fruit loop.... He should never be released,he'll always be a sandwich short of a picnic..... The scene where the sick Fuck shot John.....was that filmed at the Dakota...is that what the entrance looks like.... As I recall, it was done in Canada. Not positive, though.
|
|
|
Post by mrjinks on Mar 11, 2009 14:23:29 GMT -5
There's an almost identical movie out: "The Killing of John Lennon". Seen it, and passed on it, many times at the local video store. I didn't opt to rent Chapter 27 either, fwiw...
|
|
|
Post by jellyzero79 on Sept 16, 2009 11:47:57 GMT -5
Neither are good films, but "The Killing Of..." is the worst of the two.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jan 14, 2010 0:30:26 GMT -5
Well... MDC has never been proven to have killed John, just his confession after changing his NOT GUILTY plea at the last minute without telling his counsel ... wake up and THINK why these movies keep getting made in the first place..
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jan 14, 2010 6:25:03 GMT -5
Well... MDC has never been proven to have killed John, just his confession after changing his NOT GUILTY plea at the last minute without telling his counsel ... wake up and THINK why these movies keep getting made in the first place.. To squeeze money out of an uninformed and gullible public.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2010 6:54:06 GMT -5
Well... MDC has never been proven to have killed John, just his confession after changing his NOT GUILTY plea at the last minute without telling his counsel ... wake up and THINK why these movies keep getting made in the first place.. To squeeze money out of an uninformed and gullible public. Exactly, Fred. And what's this nonsense about MDC possibly not having been the one who killed John? For crying out loud, the doorman witnessed it, the cops came and arrested him right there on the spot. The killer told the arresting officers he'd just shot Lennon. He talked all about it and admitted it right from the get-go. I swear, people will try anything to come up with political theories and other types of scandals. Maybe they can come up with one that John's not really dead. One thing's for sure though -- on a positive note, at least Lennon's killer would be right pissed and denied all the glory he so desperately sought from killing John, if these conspiracy theories gained prominence over the facts.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jan 14, 2010 16:16:43 GMT -5
Well... MDC has never been proven to have killed John, just his confession after changing his NOT GUILTY plea at the last minute without telling his counsel ... wake up and THINK why these movies keep getting made in the first place.. To squeeze money out of an uninformed and gullible public. Yeah right.. how many people saw this ? They do it to continually perpetuate the story that MDC was the real killer.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jan 14, 2010 16:33:51 GMT -5
To squeeze money out of an uninformed and gullible public. Exactly, Fred. And what's this nonsense about MDC possibly not having been the one who killed John? For crying out loud, the doorman witnessed it, the cops came and arrested him right there on the spot. The killer told the arresting officers he'd just shot Lennon. He talked all about it and admitted it right from the get-go. I swear, people will try anything to come up with political theories and other types of scandals. Maybe they can come up with one that John's not really dead. One thing's for sure though -- on a positive note, at least Lennon's killer would be right pissed and denied all the glory he so desperately sought from killing John, if these conspiracy theories gained prominence over the facts. As a John fan you shouldn't be so close-minded. The burden of proof in a conspiracy is always with the private investigator. Alot of guys have come to the same conclusion that John was assassinated. Were there other persons along with Chapman shooting at Lennon to make sure he died? Who fled the scene in a hurry, never sought again by law enforcement agencies? Why did the New York police adamantly refuse to accept pictures of Chapman taken autographing an album earlier in the evening of the murder? Why were they donated to a newspaper after the police refused to accept them? When Chapman's wife was called by the New York Police, why did they instruct her, "Don't release any picture of him."? How could Miami Police issue an erroneous description of a criminal record having the same last name, date of birth, race, and approximate height as the slaying suspect? Can we ever see the picture of the Florida suspect? If Chapman was treated for mental illness in Hawaii, how did he procure the weapon in Hawaii? How did Chapman transport the gun from the Island to the Mainland? (This question was dismissed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents, who said, "No investigation was in progress.") Money was never a problem for this wanderer. He and his wife lived in a $400 a month apartment and were able to support his hobby of collecting expensive works of art. Owning original Norman Rockwell lithographs worth $7,500, and traveling around the world aren't impossible, if there is some kind of occupation that provides the money for these luxuries. If Chapman wrote "John Lennon" on his job work sheet on October 23, 1980, it would seem impossible for someone not to notice this message until the day after Lennon was murdered. Employment log sheets are usually added up regularly to determine the hours worked and amount of pay checks. It is more probable that Chapman wrote this name at that time so that his cover story, his defense after the murder, would be his mental identification with John Lennon. Chapman's intention to find Lennon, as just another adoring Beatle fan, must be separated from the question of who transported him from Hawaii to Georgia to New York, back to Hawaii, and back again to New York, with lots of cash, and with the sole purpose of killing Lennon. Jimmy Breslin, New York columnist, was impressed that Mark David Chapman could be such a "good shot" with "no military background at all." But Chapman had been trained to shoot. He had learned to become a security guard in Georgia before his trips to Lebanon and to the many countries where he could have been instructed in killing. What about Ft. Chaffee? Why not shooting practice in Tennessee? What about military bases in Hawaii? What gives Breslin and the New York Daily News the right to make such statements without an inkling of Chapman's background? Like all the other "loner" drifters, Chapman stayed at expensive hotels. His last evening before killing Lennon was spent at the Sheraton Centre Hotel in New York. He was carrying more than $2,000 in cash along with his credit cards. Where did he get these cards, and on what basis was the money earned and saved to establish credit to qualify for these cards?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2010 17:59:29 GMT -5
As a John fan you shouldn't be so close-minded. The burden of proof in a conspiracy is always with the private investigator. Alot of guys have come to the same conclusion that John was assassinated. And I'd say they're all full of crap. And being a John fan has nothing to do with it, so don't be absurd. Yeah, it was Paul. LOL! You crack me up. Thanks - I could use the laugh after a hard day at work! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jan 14, 2010 18:39:15 GMT -5
No worries Joe You sound abit older than me BUT hopefully you and I will both still be around in 20 or 30 years time when the truth comes out !
|
|