 | |
List Price: $19.95 | | Label: Peace Arch
Salesrank: 30944
Released: September 30, 2008 |
| Our Price: $11.99 |
| Used Price: $3.26 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
On a raw, cold evening in early December, 1980, Mark David Chapman (Jared Leto), a disturbed drifter from Hawaii, met ex-Beatle John Lennon. Moments later, the entire world was shocked senseless. Based on chilling true events, Jared Leto is unforgettable in his mental and physical portrayal of an unhinged and angry man whose descent into madness led him to commit one of the most infamous crimes of the 20th century. It is a psychological portrait like no other that will leave you stunned long after its nerve-shattering and tragic conclusion.
Chapter 27 Reviews:
GREAT MOVIE AND SELLER 
2009-12-03 - I LIKED THIS MOVIE AS A LENNON FAN, GREAT ACTING. USED DVD ARRIVED VERY QUICKLY IN GREAT CONDITION AS STATED.
A very sad pathetic man 
2009-10-05 - I wanted to watch Chapter 27 because I am a fan of music and love music and wanted to get some sense of how a fan of John Lennon could murder him in cold blood after gaining his autograph just hours before. I didn't see this film as a vehicle for praising or being sympathetic to Mark David Chapman, although after watching it, I did find that he was portrayed in a sympathetic light in some scenes even if it was unintentional. I don't understand Mark David Chapman or his motives for killing John Lennon and he doesn't deserve my understanding in my opinion. But seeing this film gave me a persepctive on how something so chilling and unfathomable could've happened to someone so famous.
Jared Leto did a believable portrayal of the insanity and psychoticness of Mark David Chapman. It reinforced my feelings of how unsympathetic, calculated and cold Mark David Chapman's motives were for killing John Lennon despite the fact that John Lennon so graciously gave an autograph to the sick, twisted individual who would so soon take his life. I found it so strange how unguarded John Lennon lived his life and how he would be swarmed by paparazzi in this day and age and would probably not live in a building without a private, gated entrance. It was amazing to watch the scene where he walks out of the Dakota and there is just one photographer and a handful of fans. That would never happen today with society's obsession with celebrity.
I don't think of this film as a validation or recognition of Mark David Chapman as some kind of victim to mental illness. I see this film as a testament to why this man should be kept in prison for his entire life with no parole. I was astounded to even think he was up for parole just because he is a born again Christian? He killed a man in cold blood and it was calculated when you shoot someone in the back 5 times. I don't know the historical facts surrounding John Lennon's death but I do know this film reinforces my feeling that someone like Mark David Chapman needs to stay in prison to pay for his crime and not to forget the sheer evil that can evolve in a person's heart to commit such an atrocious act of violence against another human being.
sick film
2009-07-28 - This movie shows you exactly why Chapman was so sick in what he did- he wasn't right in the head from the get go. I kind of figured that much going into the film, but watching the story unfold and the tense moments build and build, you can see Chapman would succeed in his sick little goal.
One thing that surprised me is that Chapman kept waiting outside the hotel where Lennon was staying hoping to, in his words, get to meet John Lennon. Of course nobody knew what he meant exactly when he said he wanted to meet Lennon- the people around him just thought he was a quiet guy who was a huge fan.
I wasn't aware he kept trying to get close to this photographer that was waiting to snap some photos of Lennon. Chapman and the photographer kept talking, and there was even a point when Chapman wouldn't leave the poor guy alone, even following him down the street when the photographer clearly had enough of Chapman's odd, demanding ways.
I didn't know Chapman actually met Lennon's little boy the day before he went crazy outside the park area of the hotel. I WAS aware Lennon gave Chapman an autograph just a brief time before Chapman would give everyone the worst surprise ever.
That horrible scream by Yoko Ono the moment Lennon was shot and killed... that's a moment that nearly made me cry myself because you can feel the honest emotions in the movie, and I can only guess that's how it really happened. Such a horrible incident involving one of my favorite musicians.
You get a real good idea what kind of sick person Chapman was while the story develops, and he meets people around the city. What appeared to most people to just be Chapman as a quiet strange guy, quickly changed into something else- a monster.
The whole movie is seen from the point of view of Chapman's life the moment he arrives to New York City. This movie does a fine job clearing up exactly what happened the night Lennon was killed. I wish the incident never happened of course, but this movie shows us what it's like seeing a crazy man think carefully about what he was planning to do, and actually carrying out his sick plan.
Great Performance by Leto in a Mediocre Film
2009-07-24 - My family's satellite provider gave us a free preview of a movie channel in hopes that we would subscribe. We watched Chapter 27 one afternoon when we had nothing else to do. Chapter 27 is not bad, but it is not a "must-see" film by any means.
The best thing about the film, by far, is Jared Leto's performance as Mark David Chapman. Leto's physical resemblance to Chapman is uncanny. Leto is often the sole character on screen and he does a good job of "carrying" the film. He is particularly strong in the scene in which Chapman hires a prostitute; in a few short minutes Leto subtly conveys Chapman's awkwardness, alienation, and madness. There are several other scenes that overtly establish Chapman's character, but none has the punch of that scene.
The sole slip in Leto's performance is his attempt at a Southern accent. To a Southerner's ear, he just does not pull it off very well. (In fact, Leto mutters and sounds as though he took too much Xanax; too often, he "talks... like... this...")
The rest of the cast is largely wasted. Lindsay Lohan is not bad as Jude, but she is given absolutely nothing worthwhile to do. The only standout in the supporting cast is Judah Friedlander. Friedlander plays Paul, an aspiring paparazzi, who frequents the Dakota (Lennon's apartment building) in order to get photos that he can sell. Paul is memorable, even though he is on screen for just a few minutes.
I also think that the filmmakers deserve credit for some excellent visuals and music. There are some great, colorful exteriors of Manhattan. The interiors tend, on the other hand, to be stark. I suppose the interiors are supposed to suggest Chapman's bleak mental state, but some of them are so dark that the film is difficult to see. Today's cinematographers all seem to think that a film has more artistic merit if the screen is so dark that the viewer has trouble understanding what is happening.
At best, Chapter 27 is a guilty pleasure. The film is about Chapman, period; it does not examine the effects of Chapman's violence and that is inexcusable. I think, moreover, that Chapman isn't interesting enough to sustain interest over the film's 90 minutes. Chapter 27 inadvertently provides a "nobody" killer (Chapman) with the notoriety that he sought by murdering a celebrity. At worst, Chapter 27 is yet another entry in a long line of movies that celebrate mental illness and graphic violence.
Chapter 27 is not a bad film to watch if you are bored and have nothing else to do. I would not, however, recommend that anyone seek it out.
unwatchable 
2009-06-08 - I have to wonder why one would make a movie about the man who shot John Lennon. Seriously. Who cares about this piece of crap? But, I gave it a shot hoping to see a good performance from Leto. What a horrible movie. Completely unwatchable. The thing I kept asking myself, before hitting fastforward was, 'Why SHOULD I care?' The director/writer never convinced me that I should unless the allusions to catcher in the rye was all he had up his sleeve???
