Jack is caught with the wife of his employer, a Vegas thug. The thug sends goons after Jack, who convinces his best friend, Pilot, to flee with him. Pilot insists that they head for Seattle... See full summary »
A story about a troubled boy growing up in England, set in 1983. He comes across a few skinheads on his way home from school, after a fight. They become his new best friends even like family. Based on experiences of director Shane Meadows.
Mark Chapman's meeting with little Sean Lennon and his nanny the day Chapman shot John Lennon was a real incident, though unlike the film's portrayal of it, the meeting took place in the Dakota apartment building. See more »
Mark David Chapman:
I believe in Holden Caulfield. And in the book, and what he was saying, what he was saying to a lost generation of phony people.
See more »
In the credits, all of the people are credited for their characters, however the final listings are as follows: John Lennon..................Mark Lindsay Chapman and Jared Leto See more »
I wanted to watch this movie because, in a weird coincidence, I happened to walk by the Dakota the night John Lennon was shot. At the time I was a senior in high school visiting New York for a few days, feeling a lot like my imagination of Holden Caufield. "John Lennon got shot," the police said. I went to Central Park for the public memorial. Some people were sad, but many others were excited, as if they were taking part in a giant happening. The atmosphere was hardly funereal, something you can see in the stock footage of the scene. I was disgusted and left. "Phonies," I thought.
The movie gets a lot of things right. The preppy clothes, the look of New York, the bad food, the awkward dialogall this brought back memories of feeling young and alienated. It also succeeds in its allusions to "The Catcher in the Rye" and even "Lolita," where Chapman could just as easily have been Humbert Humbert at the end. The acting is quite good, and the direction, though flawed, succeeds more often than not.
Most interesting to me was the concept. Many reviewers feel disappointed that we don't understand the mind of the killer by the end. But that's the point. There's nothing to understand. The relation between fans and artists is much like the relation between youth and age, or poor and rich, or even mobs and leaders. In the first instance, there is sensitivity that this powerless and derivative, and in the second, there is sensitivity that is assured and original. The former condition, as Salinger, Nabokov, and my own memory of adolescence contend, is basically Hell. The main character never escapes this condition: consider his book inscription. From this perspective the movie is less an exploration of his motivation, which is causal and developmental, than a description of his emotional state, which is static and permanent. This is suggested by the structure of the narrative, which follows the circularity of Salinger's novel.
Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether the movie pulls off the larger metaphor, namely, that America itself has never escaped the nightmare of adolescence. If you want to see the disintegration of a lonely loser, "The Assassignation of Richard Nixon" is a better movie. But "Chapter 27" is smarter than it appears.
55 of 75 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?