Chapter 27 (2007) User Reviews (75)

Reach Exceeds Grasp

[gabridl · 6/10 · 6 April 2007]

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.

Wonderfully Slow, Wonderfully Painful.

[psycho_randomnumber · 7/10 · 30 March 2007]

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.

Excellent portrayals of both Chapman and Lennon

[fansofmlc · 7/10 · 11 July 2008]

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

Chapter 27; how could you?

[val-e-07 · 9 August 2007]

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.

Good movie that could have been so much better

[se7en187 · 6/10 · 11 June 2007]

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.

"Chapter 27": What it is, what it isn't!

[MOOVYZ · 7/10 · 3 August 2008]

"Chapter 27" IS NOT an important film. It IS a film worth watching! The writer/director, J.P. Shaefer, gives us a look into the mind of a man seeking his own identity, at the expense on another man's life.

The film IS NOT exactly the view from inside Mark David Chapman's mind. But is IS likely a close imitation of that mind. The view is based on a lot of research, that part is evident. I have read much of what has been written about this troubled young man and these "reflections" presented in the movie are accurate and detailed.

The film IS NOT chapter 27 in "The Catcher in the Rye", the great piece by J.D. Salinger that is said to be a motivating factor in Chapman's life and his decision to kill John Lennon. Chapman modeled his life after the main character in the book, Holden Caufield, and wanted his life to be an extension of that. To view Chapman's act as a continuation of a great novel is an insult to that author. The film simply shows us what a fragile thing the human mind is and how easily it can be driven towards madness by the inspiration, though completely twisted, of other visions.

"Chapter 27" IS NOT a fresh, unique story. It IS based on the work from another book by a writer named Jack Jones, who's biography of Chapman, "Let Me Take You Down", is said to be the most detailed account of the life of this killer and the best information we have about the moments leading up to Lennon's murder.

"Chapter 27" IS NOT a tribute to Mark David Chapman nor is it intended to belittle the death of John Lennon. The film is a realistic view of Chapman, and one that might cause it's audience to feel sorry for this disturbed individual. Sorry, yet unsympathetic.

So what exactly is "Chapter 27"? Well, from my viewpoint, it IS an exceptional piece of work on many levels...

The acting is superb. Jared Leto, (Executive Producer)who was obviously passionate about the role as he went to great lengths to "become" Mark David Chapman. He put on an estimated 40 or more pounds to alter his appearance. Leto, who is usually cast as the "pretty boy" in many films ("Girl Interrupted" comes to mind) completely disregarded his good looks to capture this identity. His mannerisms are almost identical to those of Chapman (from actual interviews I have seen), especially the eyes. He seems, as does Chapman, to often be looking away from those he comes in contact with as if he is afraid someone might see the "beast" inside if he looks directly at them. Leto's grasp of Chapman's voice and accent is spot on. And, most importantly, the way Leto (as Chapman) interacts with others gives us a great awareness that most of those people probably "knew" something wasn't right, but no one could put their finger on what it was, or what was about to happen. You can feel a real sense of doom as you watch Chapman talk to the various doormen "guarding" the "Dakota", you can see how he scares and confuses the photographer who captures, on film, Chapman and Lennon together just hours before the murder. You can see how he attracts, yet pushes away Jude , a young girl who "hangs out" often to get a glimpse of Lennon, and played exceptionally well by Lindsay Lohan. And the encounter between Chapman and a young Sean Lennon sends chills up the spine. Leto slowly and methodically leads us down the twisted path on this collision course of Lennon and Chapman. And there is one moment in the film (that may or may not be accurate but certainly would seem logical) where Chapman want's badly to walk away and NOT fulfill his destiny, so to speak, but ultimately can't stop himself. Leto puts us as close to this madman as anyone could, or would want to, be.

Mark Lindsay Chapman (no, I did NOT make this up!) plays John Lennon. Shaefer captures the "essence" of the incredible ex-Beatle by showing the audience only side views and rear shots, which not only allows us to see Lennon (as opposed to an actor playing him) but adds a sense of "mystical presence" that Chapman, and millions of fans, saw in this humble yet ultra-famous celebrity.

The cinematography is not beautiful. It is only adequate in this department. It is not polished or creatively edited. Many shots are hand held, not so much for a sense of art as likely a result of time constraints, etc. of working with a small budget ($5 Million CAD). My impression is that the small budget must have been maxed out as there was virtually no publicity about this film. And the box office results were the lowest I have ever seen, opening on 2 screens? Had this film received some studio or distributor backing, it might have done very well at the box office and perhaps even some awards as the acting certainly warrants them.

"Chapter 27" is, as I said, NOT an important film. We all know what the loss of John Lennon meant to the world. The film does allow the audience to see how a feeling of inferiority, that lies within us all, could lead a man to think that this was how he should, and would, be important; by committing this unthinkable act. But most importantly, it reminds us never to forget John Lennon, his music, his message… the importance, and non-importance of all mankind.

Chapter 27 (2007) BOMB

[JoeKarlosi · 1/10 · 19 October 2008]

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 head 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. 0 out of ****

To each his own

[Absyrd · 6/10 · 7 February 2009]

I've read just about every possible comment anyone can make about this film, from stupid, insipid, tasteless trash to slow, minimalist masterpiece of modern cinema. I should come out and say I've loved every performance Jared Leto has ever given, and this appears to be his biggest, boldest effort yet, gaining well over 50 pounds to play the character. Was it a fruitless waste of time and danger of health, or a triumphant success? Only time will tell. Right now the film has been poorly received by critics and masses as a boring and simplified look at a loner WITH a cause. But for me, that lead performance was a celebratory success which transcends all the banal pondering and mundane isolation and delivers a glimpse to the man behind the murder of arguably the most acclaimed musical artist of the 20th century. Any other actor would've portrayed the man as insane and raucous but sympathetic. Leto turns him into something more -- a yearning, indulgent, substandard, pathetic, arrogant, misunderstood, underestimated, and yes, insane man.

Throughout the film we follow Leto as he lives and breathes every minute of New York City before he slowly begins to drown beneath the pressures of his own social awkwardness and the surrounding annoyance of the people trying to behinder his one dream... receive an autograph from John Lennon. The film develops an atmosphere where his optimism resonates an aura of pessimism because his determination is such a futile endeavor and the inevitable aftermath is dragged along with every step he takes. Eventually, this building of tension collapses on itself when he begins to develop a predictably doomed relationship with a New Yorker girl, played well by Lindsay Lohan. It would've felt like a parable of romance were I not already aware of the proceeding outcome. So rather than being heartbreaking, it feels conventional because we know all along that she will leave him to trigger the murder. That's not what I define as ambiguity.

The film also falters with its numerous long-running narrative soliloquies which turn surreal and sometimes descend into obvious lyricism. He spends much of the film discussing his social isolation, his desperation, complaining about the banalities of his life, and his feelings of homesick. Instead of feeling insightful, they feel dreary, Like I'm reading an old man's diary rather than entering the mind of a psychopath. But what maintains the key intrigue behind all the mundane babble is the manner of Jay Leto's narration, which always compels me to see beyond the dialogue and take a long hard glimpse at a man who has something to say but doesn't how to say it sanely, who wants to express himself but can never sum up the right words to explain why he seems so obsessive-compulsive and antisocial without coming across as one or the other. I almost (*almost*) feel like I could relate to him because Leto's vigorous and dynamic performance was just such a human touch.

And now, the climax of the film. The whole shebang of wandering, outbursts, and epiphanies all lead to the killing of John Lennon itself. We witness the events leading up to Leto's convincing final transformation through flashy editing and blaring music as he pulls out his gun and shoots the man down whilst he walks drunkenly to the entrance of his hotel. The film ends as he's arrested and forced into a police car.

There's little exploitation in this film, except maybe during its final scenes. It tries to be slow and intelligent and begins to feel obnoxiously pretentious. That fabulous performance really deserved some sort of Oscar recognition, it's a rare and pure and beautiful depiction of obsessive admiration. His performance pretty much exceeds his own characterization, a stunning achievement because he's in pretty much every shot of the film.

But what did we all learn from this movie? We didn't learn much at all, actually, we were merely given a different perspective to challenge our prevailing thoughts of the event. While sometimes it feels overtly sympathetic and sometimes just simply pondering, I do believe its outstanding performance conquers my applaud, while little else redeems it as but a sad and slightly sensationalized depiction of the tragedy.

"This is my statement"...but what of the filmmakers?

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 3 August 2010]

A rather contemptible recreation of events in the disturbing life of John Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman. As portrayed by Jared Leto (a disciplined, dedicated actor who gained some 60 pounds for the role), Chapman is a suicidal, overweight ex-student from Georgia by way of Texas who believed himself to be the embodiment of Holden Caulfield, the anti-hero celebrated by J. D. Salinger in his book "The Catcher in the Rye". By killing a celebrity, Chapman felt he would finally gain all the attention he'd been deprived of in life. Leto plays him as a schizophrenic drifter with a short fuse, a man so alienated from the real world that he puts down the rich and famous for being phony without ever realizing his own deluded behavior. Without a doubt, extremely queasy and disturbing material, yet the film isn't particularly enlightening or incisive on any level. Writer-director J.P. Schaefer stages the entire picture as a build-up to Chapman's final release of fury, sort of like 'the ultimate event'. We get nothing in the wake of the senseless killing except actual news footage from December 1980 (with pictures of the real John Lennon held up by the crowds). Schaefer exploits the grief in these archival clips simply to cap his own movie off, while the actor playing Lennon (briefly glimpsed) is named Mark Lindsay Chapman... Is nothing sacred for filmmakers anymore? The melodrama on display here is meant to squeeze and prod us, and to keep us in suspense, but the sensationalistic tactics come through loudly and cheaply. *1/2 from ****

Diary of A Nobody

[rbrb · 7/10 · 24 March 2009]

Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon, and this film attempts to portray through the eyes of the killer and from his words and from his deranged perspective the events leading up to that murder.

The actor playing Chapman gives a sensational performance of a loser with mental problems and there is also an excellent performance from the actress playing the part of the person called Jude. The movie is slow, intense, painful yet compelling.

Deserving high marks for the brilliant lead actor in his portrayal in a credible and believable way of a mentally ill "nobody"; that kind of acting skill takes enormous ability and is achieved very well in this picture.

7/10.

And?

[noision1 · 1/10 · 26 January 2007]

Just caught the world premiere at Sundance tonight. At the Question and Answer with the director and lead actor, the audience asked two categories of questions. Either, "what drove you to make this movie" and "what did you learn about Chapman that is not already known" on one hand or "how many pounds did Jared Lito gain/lose to play the part" on the other. The actor Jared had more to say about the hardship of the physical aspects of this role than the director Jared had to say about the "why" of the movie other than some vague attempt to humanize Mark David Chapman and to show that his motivation apparently came from his sick adherence to the words of John Lennon and Salinger's Catcher In The Rye.

But such is already common knowledge gleaned from any standard article written about Chapman's murder of Lennon along with his last few days up until the shooting. The director admitted to no contact from the Lennon family or even with Chapman himself--why humanize someone you don't even care to meet? So, the audience wondered, what was the point? No wonder the most interesting thing to the audience the film was Jared the actor's weight commitment to the role.

Excellent acting throughout, especially Ms. Lohan's work, and solid technical film-making. But nothing interesting, thoughtful, insightful, exposing or illuminating to see.

A film about a madman causing pain and grief to a someone and their family, or in this case to millions worldwide, that sheds light as to how such person got to such a state is one thing, but one that that does nothing but execute a common knowledge play-by-play of the killer's last few days, a "Passion of the Chapman" if you will--and even that gives this film too much credit--does not seem to have a reason except possibly dull sensationalism. I say dull because, if not, wouldn't such a film have been made over twenty years ago?

A well done, well acted wasteful drag of a movie.

Not light summer entertainment, certainly

[LilithOfSherwood · 9/10 · 21 April 2007]

I wasn't sure what to expect of this movie, given the reviews that were all over the place. I was prepared for it to be dark, and for the narrative to not necessarily be straight-line. But... I wasn't prepared to like it as much as I did.

Yes, the movie doesn't give you any answers, that much of the criticism is true. But in the end, I think it's more satisfying that way. We get a little glimpse at a person who committed an inexplicable act, and maybe know a little more about him, but in the end, do we really understand? No. And that's fine. Sometimes we just DON'T know the answers to everything.

Jared Leto's performance is amazing, and well worth seeing even were the movie much worse than it is. He goes to some other place entirely, and shows us what it's like there - which, in my mind, IS great acting. Lindsey Lohan is quite good in her role, but the part is very limited - the movie belongs to Jared.

It's a shame this movie wasn't seen more widely; it certainly deserves to be.

Main Actor Completely Unrecognizeable

[fatcat-73450 · 6/10 · 5 November 2021]

I read somewhere that the actor who plays the main character here gained a lot of weight for the role. Yeah, he's unrecognizeable with his new weight and haircut. Good work on that.

The film follows Mark David Chapman, the murderer of John Lennon a few days before committing the act that would earn him an article on Wikipedia that would be read for generations to come.

It portrays Chapman as an obsessive who's internally oscillating chaotically between a desire to kill John Lennon and adoration of the man. His interactions with other people are presented as awkward and uncomfortable exchanges.

The actor effectively makes this character very creepy. He has a slow raspy voice and he usually looks absent-minded in conversations with others, as if he were focused on internal obsessions.

The other actors are also strong and it was a good decision to barely show John Lennon's character on screen.

It's mostly a stream of consciousness and interactions - it's hard to predict that the main character even wants to commit the murder unless you know story already - so it's not a movie which is either meaningful or instructive. Nevertheless, it's never boring. It's interesting as a psychological portrayal of an obsessed man descending into madness or just an awkward guy acting inappropriately in social situations.

Honourable Mentions: The King of Comedy (1983). Honestly I don't remember this movie, I saw it a long time ago, but I think it was pretty good. It's also about a criminally obsessed fan who meets his idol.

Did This Film Really Need Making?

[jon5cts · 4/10 · 3 April 2008]

There is no question that Jared Leto completely immersed himself into this role and did a fine job. There is no question that Lindsay Lohan proves once again (small role that it is) that she is a terrific actress and, should she be able to get her act together, could be around a long time and do more great work. Finally, there was some remarkable detail in both location and wardrobe making this look and feel like the early 1980's New York.

BUT, did we really learn ANYTHING? Even the details I may not have been aware of left me asking, "So?" And was it really necessary to cast a guy named MARK Linsay CHAPMAN in the John Lennon role??? It seems like a slap in the face to Lennon and his family, especially since they choose to never show the actor clearly. He didn't even look like Lennon in the album photo! ANY actor could have played this part, and certainly many actors resemble Lennon more than this guy. It was just insensitive to use him and made the entire project seem less credible.

The entire film was filled with sadness and dread. If that was the only feeling or point that the filmmakers were trying to make, then well done. But nothing was particularly interesting about this guy, and nothing was even remotely redeeming about him. Not his illness. Not his attempts to go elsewhere with someone. Nothing. It really was a shame as what should have been a Career Performance by Leto seems rather self-indulgent in the end.

Fair

[Michael_Elliott · 24 May 2008]

Chapter 27 (2007)

** (out of 4)

Jared Leto gained 60-pounds to play Mark David Chapman, the man who murdered John Lennon. The film takes place the three days leading up to the murder as we see Chapman battle his own demons in trying to make up his mind on whether or not to kill Lennon. The screenplay, by director Shaefer, tries very hard to be dark and disturbing like Taxi Driver but it ultimately fails because the screenplay is so paper thin that the only thing you learn is that Chapman went to NYC to kill Lennon. Without the credits the film runs under 80-minutes and the entire time we see Chapman talking to himself and when he isn't doing this we're greeted with voice-over narration that once again tries to say something deep yet nothing is ever said. The movie doesn't try to make us feel sorry for Chapman nor does it try to make us understand him. I'm really not sure what the point of the movie was because anyone going into the film is already going to know what happens so what exactly they were going for here is beyond me. Leto was certainly brave for gaining the weight and he's certainly trying hard but his performance really gets lost in the screenplay. Leto is fine in the role and he certainly has the voice down but in the end I think he went through all of this for no good reason. Lindsay Lohan steals the film in her few scenes as a woman, named Jude, who tries to befriend Chapman but soon realizes that the guy is nuts. When the murder finally takes place there isn't any suspense, drama and by the time it happens you're pretty much ready to leave the theater. The effort is certainly here because you can tell everyone involved was really trying to do something deep but with such a weak screenplay all hope is pretty much lost.

Quite Unsettling...Like Watching A Trainwreck

[AudioFileZ · 6/10 · 11 April 2017]

To this viewer the most revealing thing learned from the movie is Chapman's delusion about somehow righting Lennon's infamous comment when he was addressing the popularity of The Beatles. He was struggling between the kindness of John and his own inner demons to which you wonder if his delusional state hadn't been so fragile, perhaps, he may have just left without shooting Lennon. In the end he was just too filled with a darkness. It begs the question is some mental illness the spawn of true evil creation or something else entirely? In the end that's a question that can't be definitively answered. The only thing that is sure is this is the intersection of very misguided person and an artist who cast a long shadow. A dark turn ensued.

This is not an entertaining film, it's a hard ride. While it focuses on Chapman's evil dead, it does have some added value of humanizing him as a truly boxed-in and conflicted person - who needed treatment and help. Leto channels all this quite effectively. It's so good it's almost like he's not an actor so much as he's Chapman. Lindsay Lohan gives a totally honest performance as a girl who befriended Chapman and flees sensing danger. The guy playing the photographer is true to the N.J. good guy who tolerates little nonsense. He's lucky he didn't get shot because, while forgiving, he totally ticked off Chapman. In fact all the bit parts are expertly woven in adding sinister layers of Chapman's interactions which almost always veered to something unsettling and strange. Finally, the cinematography captures the somewhat isolating coldness of the NYC winter as the backdrop to this terrible moment in time. For a dour and down movie I'd say this rings true with little bombast…Just telling it straight like a documentary, but ultimately more personal and haunting. All in all, recommended.

Love/hate killing of John Lennon.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 19 July 2008]

Written and directed by J.P. Schaefer, CHAPTER 27 is a psychological portrait of Mark David Chapman(Jared Leto), a glimpse at the mental and physical agony leading up to and following the love and hate killing of John Lennon. New York City was raw, dreary and cold in December 1980, when Chapman walked off his security guard job in Hawaii and flew to meet his destiny. He loved the Beatles music; he thought Lennon's music spoke to him personally. But after conceiving the rock legend and peace activist a phony because of his material wealth...the logical thing in his troubled mind was to murder the icon.

Some may find this movie damn hard to watch. It is deliberately slow in pace with Chapman's grinding thought process. You share his pain knowing his plans will change and shock an entire world. His search for notoriety ending in tragedy. It is said that Leto gained 60 pounds to portray the disturbed drifter. And the accent is not that short of haunting. His depiction of Chapman is riveting. Also in the cast: Lindsay Lohan, Judah Friedlander, Molly Griffith and Ursula Abbott.

flawed is putting it mildly - it's a lump of a movie

[Quinoa1984 · 1/10 · 19 December 2009]

Chapter 27 was conceived by its first-time writer/director as a way of showing the final two days of Mark David Chapman's existence before he plugged six bullets into John Lennon. Perhaps he thought going in to it that he would get a stirring and harrowing chronicle of this man's madness, but what he didn't figure on, apparently at any point in writing the script, was giving us a story or any kind of real sense of who Chapman was aside from a mumbling nut-case obsessed with Catcher in the Rye. According to reports, yes, he was attached to that Salinger book a lot, and yes he loomed around the hotel Lennon was staying at.

But Scahefer misses any real chances to make the character compelling by sidestepping what is actually interesting about him- his past, only hinted at, with his wife and his time spent teaching Vietnamese children, being raised in a strict Christian upbringing apparently- for 84 minutes of the same muddled, pretentious beat over and over again. Since when was assassination this boring? And the blame on how bad this movie is can be spread out. Some of it is truly the Schaefer's fault just on the design of the narration. Sometimes narration can be really effective (I kept thinking back to the Informant, another movie about a mentally unbalanced individual with an inner-monologue as a prime example), but here it's nothing except dull diatribes and complaining and waxing and waning on how he feels or thinks that has nothing to say about Chapman himself or anything interesting about his situation.

And some of the blame falls on Jared Leto. Packing on the pounds simply is not enough, not when the character is the same lump of a presence in the entire running time and we're left with absolutely nothing to feel for him except hate - not even so much for his impending crime but for his construction as a character- and while his voice isn't terribly annoying when acting in scenes, it's somehow unbearable in the narration. It's a colossal waste of listening space.

Some of the other actors do try, but are also left slim pickings. Lindsay Lohan doesn't do too terrible, but that's considering what little of her character, another Lennon fan hanging out at the hotel, is revealed as. There's also a question, barely answered, as to why she wants to be around this loose cannon, who never once gives the impression of stability even in casual conversation (i.e. "I hate movies" dialog). Judah Freidlander fares a little better, but he too is only on screen so long as to just play a one note character the best way he can. And yet it says a lot that an actor like Leto, who can be talented and show range as in Requiem for a Dream or Panic Room, is reduced to being upstaged by his fellow performers who seemingly have less to do than him.

The movie made me angry at how it unfolded, because there was no progression of anything. I kept thinking about how much of a better, or just more fascinating, story it could be showing how Chapman developed into this deranged and lonely persona, or even just giving us more to chew on about his life before his notorious act. It's telling a situation before a story, and one that, surprisingly, is dull and meandering and, often, laughably ill-conceived in every facet of production. I almost weeped at the end not because of a sense of loss for Lennon, or for the soul brought down forever due to his own madness as Chapman, but because I had to endure a filmmaker's lack of having anything to really say, and saying it poorly, pretentiously, and with a lack of respect for the audience.

An acting achievement, a sordid story with no real explanations

[museumofdave · 7/10 · 1 March 2013]

Many viewers seem to want to blame the director of this film for shooting John Lennon all over again, or emphasize that former sigh-guy Leto put on 80 pounds to inhabit the slovenly, corpulent body of Mark David Chapman and to no avail Those of us who lived through the Beatles, who admired them, were horrified by what seemed to be an inexplicable killing--and wanted explanations, as we want to understand the killing of a beloved celebrity or a president.

As depicted in this film, the twisted psyche of this killer is not revealed--as as Friday says in Dragnet, we just get the facts, which are vivid enough to give us some idea of the weird hallucinations that went on in the mind of a killer obsessed with one of the most influential men on the planet. Since you know how this story is bound to end, you only might want to watch it if you want to see an acting tour-de-force or get some notion of what kind of sickness infested the man who called himself Holden. This film is not a cheerer-upper, and doesn't offer the usual voyeuristic excitements, but it seems sincere and well-assembled and Leto deserves credit for not wanting always to be The Dreamboat Guy.

Spoiler alert: John Lennon dies. Who saw that coming?

[MikeK1987 · 1/10 · 2 February 2011]

Warning: I didn't see this film. I refuse to see this film. This is a review about the fact that this film exists.

This is one of those cases where filmmakers go too far with their craft. I'm a huge John Lennon and Beatles fan, and Lennon's murder was one of the saddest things to ever happen to humanity in general, let alone the musical community. I don't want to see a film about the man that killed him. What are the producers trying to prove? That Mark David Chapman had good reasons for his actions? No! He was a psychopath obsessed with killing John Lennon who unfortunately got to do his ultimate deed. Enough said. Why do you have to make a movie about it?

Were you not considering the feelings of Yoko, Julian, and Sean? Who wants to see a movie, let alone know that a film exists, about the guy who killed your husband or father? Famous or not. It would be the worst thing in the world to me. In that sense, I empathize with Sean when he was upset by knowing that Lindsey Lohan, whom he considers a friend, was partially responsible for getting this film green-lighted. What's worse about this is that this is EXACTLY what Chapman wanted. He wanted to be famous, and this is damning evidence to prove it!

I usually try to be a pragmatist and give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, but this is one subject that didn't need to and shouldn't have been explored beyond the usual historical media, such as news, documentaries, books, etc. But a dramatic feature film? It's just too much.

Unfortunately, there really isn't much anybody can do now though, seeing as how the film has been out for nearly 4 years already, except just to urge film buffs and Lennon/Beatles fans to not give this film or any other film regarding Mark David Chapman any consideration, and instead consider the feelings of Lennon's relatives and pay tribute to John by simply listening to and enjoying the greatest thing he could have left behind, his music.

A truly disturbing movie, in many ways.

[patrickgmturner-1 · 7/10 · 10 August 2008]

I have to say this up front. The people who choose to ignore this movie are as complicit in the cycles of violence that it portrays as the people who met Mark David Chapman in those three days in 1980. It is not that I blame these people. We are all guilty of ostracizing and isolating the people who are not like us, the people who may frighten us, or those who disgust us. I would probably do the same (get this psycho away from me).

My strongest impression of this movie is how the people surrounding Mark David Chapman may have had a chance to avert this depraved action. Wasn't Mark David Chapman begging people to make him stop? This Jude character does make attempts to befriend the killer, and does admirably. Yet eventually she, too, must keep her distance. I do not know how much of this actually happened or is just storytelling. But the movie, if anything, seems authentic to me.

Through further research I found out that Mark David Chapman's girlfriend in Hawaii actually knew that he had gone to New York earlier that year to shoot John Lennon. He returned and said he was cured, then he goes back to New York City. On the phone she tells him that the first step is to let Jesus into his heart. Well played! How about calling the police? Ah, probably wouldn't work. The police would have ignored her.

None of this, though, changes the fact in my mind that Mark David Chapman was a cold-blooded killer. He deserves no sympathy, but that doesn't mean we can't try to understand him. If Yoko Ono is true to what she says and writes, then she has forgiven him. Shouldn't we? Yes, he took our greatest voice. But Lennon was no saint either. I hope I am clearly communicating the sense of contradiction that I am feeling here.

Onto the movie. It is pretty cut and dried. The highlight is Jared Leto. Some people say he is channeling De Niro because of the weight gain. That summary misses the boat completely. The performance is completely different than Raging Bull. De Niro's rage was outside. Leto's rage is hidden and subverted. It is an incredible lesson in restraint that Jared displays here. The understatement of it all may make it seem like he is not really acting, but he is acting his a** off. I think it a hallmark performance.

Conceptually, well it is hard for me to say right now. I have read Catcher in the Rye, but truthfully I have forgotten most of it. Today I will pull it off the bookshelf and read it again. I could see myself either seeing this movie then as a true classic or a pile of rubbish. I can't tell you which it will be. Why don't you try the same?

But do not worry that I will go out and do something after reading the book. I have many people who love me. There are people out there who are alone and afraid, though. Can't someone do something about that?

PPPP.

Like the book "Catcher in the Rye", this movie was pointless.

[fostersbox · 2/10 · 12 February 2011]

J.D. Salinger's novel "Catcher in the Rye" was written by a sick and bitter mind with sympathy for the devil- so too was this film. I felt like the makers were expressing sympathy for Lennon's killer (who SHOULD remain nameless)so much so that they granted the killer's wish- his dream has come true with this abomination- a whole movie about him! Happy, Leto? It also makes me wonder a little about Jared Leto & Lindsay Lohan, considering the recent turns their career's have taken lately. This film is as exploitive as a film can be, and I feel the same as I did when I finished Catcher in the Rye all those years ago- I want my 84 minutes back, and now I have a third reason to detest J.D. Salinger!

(FYI, I actually am not a huge Beatles fan, but I hate murder.)

The Catcher in The Rye

[bifties · 10/10 · 26 March 2007]

I have read a few of the comments already posted, and am amazed that no one has mentioned the fact that this movie if effectively telling the story of Holden Caulfield. I have heard in the past that many people have looked at turning The Catcher in The Rye into a movie, but have found it difficult as most of the book is spent inside Holden's head. Chapter 27, so named because The Catcher in The Rye has only 26 chapters, is telling the story of The Catcher in The Rye as well was the Story of Mark David Chapman who was apparently obsessed with the book. This is a dark film, and very few people will leave the cinema with a big smile on their face, but I certainly recommend seeing it, especially anyone who has read The Catcher in The Rye.

Good, but...

[Rapturous_Rich · 6/10 · 21 July 2008]

Over the years Mark Chapman has changed his reasoning for his actions. These range from being obsessed with a book (The Catcher In The Rye) so much that he thought himself as the main character who saw phoneys everywhere whom he had to kill without choice; to the classic "voices in the head" syndrome; even right down to just wanting some attention and recognition for something he had done. Well the phrase "be careful what you wish for" could only be applied so righteously to few other men.

This relatively short film (a mere 80 minutes) incorporates two of the above reasons, and as we see Chapman (Jared Leto, almost unrecognisable under waves of body fat and a Georgia accent) in the three days leading up to Lennon's death, it becomes clear pretty early on that this guy did not have all his marbles upon arriving State-side from Hawaii. He has a distinct and direct distaste for many of the people he comes across – laughing in their faces at things they say, becoming hostile or just plain ignoring them – while an unnerving voice over provides a retrospective look back at the events as Chapman recalls them from his cell. Amidst rants about homosexuals, perverts and other undesirables as well as the phoneys of Hollywood, he waltzes around his room practicing gun drawing and concealment while he goes on about being "a normal guy, not like these lot".

The slow decay of Chapman's mind builds toward a reminiscence of Robert DeNiro's incredible turn in Taxi Driver, but this is so much more gruelling and engaging and, essentially, terrifying. Because this is the man who killed John Lennon. He is not an actor playing in front of the camera. He is planning out how to do it and the anxiety of what is to come becomes nigh on unbearable.

So you can see that Chapter 27 captures a twisted, tortured mind artistically and fully, and tries to make sense of the actions it took; Leto's acting is impeccable (and no doubt a hard choice to play it considering the internet controversy the film caused) but you can't help but feel it was made solely for Lennon fans who want to see Chapman for more than the human being he is, they want to see a monster and that's what this film gives us, a man who got wrapped up in psychological troubles and made a mistake. A huge one, agreed. But Lennon is dead, and no amount of dehumanisation of his killer can change that. The finale is what people want to see this film for, the moment where the trigger is pulled; the reasons behind it are a secondary want. It's heartbreaking and depressing and enraging all in one, but if you ask Chapman now he'll tell you he doesn't know why he did it; and this film tells you the same: John Lennon was needlessly, pointlessly slaughtered and no one has a reason for it.

Read the full review and more at www.wrawreviews.co.uk

"Chapter 27", When It's Not Dull and Dragging, Tells Us Nothing We Didn't Know Before

[D_Burke · 4/10 · 21 June 2011]

"Chapter 27" tells the true story of Mark David Chapman, and the three days leading up to his assassination of John Lennon. He put four bullets into one of the most beloved and respected rock and roll icons in the world, changed history for the worst, and after the movie is done, we still don't quite understand why he did it.

The most frustrating part of "Chapter 27" is that it is ambitious enough to take on a compelling true story, but somehow manages the drag the story's pacing by weighing it down with blatant egomania. It starts out on December 6, 1980, with Chapman (Jared Leto) taking a taxi into New York City. Throughout the movie, Chapman goes from hanging out in front of The Dakota, where John Lennon lived, to his hotel room and back again, stopping occasionally in insignificant places in between.

The problem with this movie is not its historical accuracy. Did Chapman spend these three days meandering around before shooting Lennon? Yes, he probably did. What I want to know, however, is at least a little bit about Chapman's background. Chapman just hanging out in his hotel room is about as interesting as Ted Bundy eating a bowl of cereal. I want to know more about his obsession with the Beatles. Why did he choose to target Lennon as opposed to Paul McCartney, George Harrison, or even Ringo Starr for that matter? You can look it up, but you're never given a clear answer in this film.

Plus, I really wanted to know a little bit about his life in Hawaii, where he lived before the shooting. He was married, so why did he cheat on his wife with a prostitute? Obviously there was something amiss in his marriage, but the movie only hints at the problem, not the cause.

Perhaps most of all, Chapman obviously sees a lot of Holden Caulfield, J.D. Salinger's immortal character from "The Catcher In The Rye", in himself. After all, throughout the film, Leto quotes Caulfield verbatim, from asking a cab driver about how fish survive the winter, to dismissing movies as being "so fake". However, what is never explained, and what needed to be, is this: WHAT DOES HOLDEN CAULFIELD HAVE TO DO WITH KILLING SOMEONE?

I happen to love "The Catcher In The Rye". In fact, I've read it twice, and I never came across any line in that book that suggested Caulfield wanted to shoot someone. Caulfield wasn't perfect, but he certainly was no killer. Obviously Chapman misinterpreted the book, but what this movie failed to explain was what part, or parts, of the novel Chapman fixated upon to get that message.

All these things are frustrating because this movie should have been better. Jared Leto, after all, is a really good actor who has been in some great films ("Fight Club" (1999), "American Psycho" (2000), "Requium For a Dream" (2000)). In this movie, he went the route that Robert De Niro took in "Raging Bull" (1980) by intentionally putting on 60 pounds for this one role. He also adopts a creepy, whispering Southern accent heard throughout the film. Unfortunately, although Chapman was a true egomaniac in real life, Leto's attempt to portray him seems too vain. As a result, his performance comes off as self-aggrandizing as his stint in 30 Seconds To Mars.

Lindsay Lohan, surprisingly enough, is really good in this movie as Jude, a Beatles fan who is more level headed than Chapman was. Jude was probably a fictional character, as I can't find any information as to whether a woman named Jude actually existed even on Wikipedia. Still, when the movie ended, I wanted to know what happened to her. I already know what became of Chapman.

The film's final mistake at the end is fatal. It assumes that the climax, Chapman shooting Lennon, is its own reward. You see Leto point a gun, you hear a gunshot, and the screen goes black. You see some real life footage of fans mourning Lennon interspersed with newsreels from the time and an admittedly startling shot of Leto, as Chapman, looking directly into the camera talking about how he's the victim. What you don't see, however, is Chapman sitting down on the sidewalk reading "The Catcher In The Rye" before the police apprehend him. Chapman actually did this, and I find it more fascinating than anything. He didn't run away, and he could have. That fact alone speaks more about Chapman's egomania than Leto's gradually tired voice-over monologues ever could.

Even worse is the on-screen epilogue, which states that Chapman is still in prison and is now a born-again Christian. Well, isn't that great! He was moronic enough to kill a rock and roll legend, and now he's repenting. Whoop dee doo! Such an uninspired epilogue is key to understanding what went wrong in this film: it never tells us anything we don't already know. Don't the filmmakers know that Chapman was a fool who played it cool by making the world a little colder?