Chapter 27

Slow and Painful. Two words that aptly describe the assassination of John Lennons.

Acting: Jared Leto is Mark Chapman. The weight gain, the accent, the mannerisms, the eccentric disturbing yet intriguing eyes. His acting is nothing short of excellent. Lindsay Lohan is believable, however, her character is esssentially non-existent.

Directing: Loneliness. The feeling is loneliness is excellently captured by director J.P. Schaefer. I don't want to compare this work to Taxi Driver but both pieces contain a broken, lonely main character in New York. The feeling of loneliness is beautifully capture. I felt lonely watching this movie, i felt all alone. Something i haven't felt since watching Taxi Driver.

Script: It won't be an Oscar winning script. You won't leave the theatre feeling mystified as you did after you saw fight club and the usual suspects. However, the script fits perfectly. Critics have crucified Chapter 27 saying it does not give an in-depth look into the mind of the killer. But that's not the point of the film, Mark Chapman even admits this a few minutes into the film.

If you feel it's too soon to watch a movie about John Lennon don't watch it. The actual killing scene, although not graphic, is very powerful. But if you have the choice of seeing this movie, give it a go.

Step into the mind of a deranged stalker…Listen to the tortured, obsessive, thoughts as he rambles on and on.

That's the premise of this strange but well-done film about the man who killed John Lennon. If you're looking for a good date movie, forget it—unless your date is a forensic psychologist or a CSI fan. This film is not "entertainment." The director's intent was to explore the internal state of Mark David Chapman in the three days leading up to his murder of Lennon.

For those who are upset that this film was ever made, be assured that it in no way glorifies Chapman. Though the director wants us to empathize, i.e., understand the mind of the killer, he does not try for sympathy. Chapman is presented as the pathetic loser he actually was. Jared Leto, who gained 60 pounds for the role (the resemblance is eerie) gives us a portrayal of a weird, annoying pest. So annoying in fact that it's hard to believe that Jude, the Lindsay Lohan character (who may nor may not have existed), would want to pal around with him. I guess she is supposed to feel sorry for him.

The other Chapman—Mark Lindsay Chapman (no comment on the name, that's been done to death, pardon the expression, elsewhere) is equally good in his all too brief role as John Lennon. As the director, J.P. Shaefer, has said elsewhere, he wanted someone to play Lennon as a real person, not an icon. Mark Lindsay Chapman's portrayal is down-to-earth and matter of fact—just like the real Lennon. He sounds eerily like the real Lennon too. MLC is a brilliant choice and cosmically appropriate. He was chosen from a field of 200 to play Lennon in a TV movie back in 1988 (when he was calling himself Mark Lindsay). When Yoko Ono found out his real name, she fired him—bad karma. Now it has come full circle and MLC finally gets to play the role--almost as if it was his destiny.

The film is somewhat artsy (which is both good and bad) but it is fairly good at capturing the essence the obsessive stalker mentality. Leto is excellent in the role, making you believe that you are actually seeing Mark David Chapman. But if you want to know why he did it, you'll have to look elsewhere. It does not explore Chapman's background—his religious fanaticism, his teenage obsession with Lennon, or the crushing disappointment when Lennon announced jokingly that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Chapter 27 won't be everyone's cup of mocha latte. It's disturbing and weird—just like Mark David Chapman. It's not a film you will "like," but it is a film that you may find interesting. It may not give insight in to the "why" but it does paint a striking picture of the "how." Arcania

I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.

Starring Jared Leto as Mark Chapman, it follows him over the course of a few days until December 8, 1980 when he killed John Lennon.

It was pretty good, but nothing special. Jared Leto did a nice job as Chapman and was in virtually every frame of the film. Lindsay Lohan played a minor role as one of the fellow Lennon fans, but she's barely in the film. The film could really work as a one man show on stage.

The problem with the film is that it's very repetitive. At 84 minutes, it's pretty much 84 minutes of Chapman narrating, "I have to meet John Lennon,I have to kill John Lennon." I don't know much about the real Mark Chapman, and I don't know if this film is extremely accurate, but there could have been a better way to tell the story.

Overall, I was pretty disappointed with this film, it's an okay movie but it could have been so much better.

I wanted to watch this movie because, by 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 Caulfield. "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 dialog all 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, is right 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. 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.

I would first like to say how disgusted I am that people would actually go and see this film. Is it not enough that the production company is making money off of a death, and not only a death - but the murder of a great legend - one of the few people who was sincerely dedicated to finding peace. Mark David Chapman said that he wanted fame from his act - so what do they do? They give it to him. Hmm... I wonder what people would've given Mr. Manson if they'd make money off of it. When does the madness of money and greed stop? Make movies to inspire people to be like John Lennon. Don't give in to a nation of Hollywood - FIGHT CHAPTER 27! I have not rated this film because I was part of the boycott.