Chapter 27 (2006)

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.

An involving but unglamorous journey

Chapter 27 does not glamourize Mark David Chapman. He's just as pathetic and disturbed here as in real life. We simply follow along, sitting on his shoulder, hearing his thoughts as he becomes even more detached and mentally unstable, all the while uplifting himself as a heroic Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye. Chapter 27 does not praise Chapman, nor does it put down John Lennon. It just lets us follow along a pathetic and disturbing journey - a piece of history we may never come to understand.

Jared Leto goes through a virtual metamorphosis, disappearing physically and mentally into Chapman, making the film all the more unnerving to watch, as there is something always slightly offputting, askew or creepy about him. For all accounts, it's a great performance.

Lindsay Lohan serves as the new aquaintance, a character so dreadfully normal that she's neither loveable or hateable, but despite going through the entire film giving forth her lines with a sort of upstrung bewilderment, she delivers a decent performance. Jared goes far, Lindsay doesn't, and that's what works about it.

I can't really recommend Chapter 27 in the traditional sense. You'll have to ask yourself if you're motivated and ready to see a film like this, because unless you feel some kind of connection to it, it becomes virtually pointless. November 8, 2008

EPIC ACTING PEFORMANCE!

Let's get this straight. This is NOT a BIO-PIC. It is a PORTRAYAL of a three day John Lennon autograph hunting expedition of the psychologically deranged Mark David Chapman. With that in mind, the film does not give the background information others are longing for, a history so to speak of Chapman's life. If you want that, this is NOT that film. let's stop focusing on what this film is NOT and start praising what it IS.

It is a monumental acting effort by Jared Leto. He is not 'acting' as Chapman. He IS Chapman. I truly believe he is in this film. That is a hard achievement to pull off for any actor ,. To totally encompass a role beyond what is called for to the point you cannot tell the difference between the actor and the person he is portraying. The only difference being that Chapman could never be as facially appealing.

Some have said Lindsay Lohan helps the film as Jude. I diagree. Her role is shallow, without any background or substance. Her acting is perfunctory, nothing more. Any actress could have played this role better. When you compare Leto's dedication and Lohan's non chalant attitude you see who paid their dues and who just showed up for a check.

On the other hand Paul Freilander is the balance in this story and his performance is great. He is neither hindered nor fooled by Chapman yet he somehow is drawn to share the same sidewalk. One wants a photo for a sale, the other an autograph, then to kill. The autograph seeker has never been played or seen in such sensitive light and with such insight into pyschosis. The long wait outside the dakota in a cold December is shown through Chapman's ramblings. Somehow you are DRAWN into his psychosis.
It all blends into one homogenous mind numbing delusion. You almost seem HAPPY he gets that autograph. The fact Lennon even asks him "Is that all you want" adds to the horror of the inevitable. I guarantee you by 1980 none of the other Beatles would have been this cordial in person. (Harrison was a well known recluse and was always weary of fans (for good reason), Ringo rarely took photos with fans to this day and Mccartney sightings on public streets are very well guarded).

The films 84 munute running time DOES leave you asking questions. The title of the film is not clearly explained. Chapman's total motivation whether by the Devil or the BOOK (Catcher) is not totally identified and apparantely there are a number of historical inaccuracies such as Sean's care taker being a polite English woman is a misnomer. Unimportant to the total scope of the film.

What you are witnessing is an ACTING TOUR DEFORCE by LETO and an equally fine supporting acting peformance by Freilander. I would have nominated BOTH for Golden Globes at the least.
This film is only boring if you cannot sit still for 30 seconds and do not like to listen and get inside the head of characters. Indeed I find it riveting. The film score is sensitive and well done. The direction is interesting and terse. I think this is a very well done film. A little more enhancement of script would have helped. No one mentioned if the DVD has any DELETED scenes which migh help explain some things. Are there deleted scenes? November 1, 2008

Horrible, Half-Attempt at a Movie

I was really excited when I rented this movie. I thought it would be interesting, informative, and an in-depth look at a famous psychotic, Mark David Chapman. Unfortunately, this movie offered none of these things. All it did was span the 3 days prior to Lennon's murder through the eyes of Chapman (Jared Leto). It gave no real background of Chapman's life before he came to NY, except that he had a super-Christian wife and used to live in Hawaii. As for the Catcher in the Rye references, they were mundane and weak, a simple throwing in of some flash-backs to fields of rye as some poor attempt at visual artistic metaphor. The film kept pushing the same facts over and over for an hour and a half. Yes, he was crazy. Yes, he lived alone and was homicidal and obsessive. But why? I wanted more, some delving into his mind, some history to the man. why did he commit the murder? was he always this way? how did he become a fan of the Beatles in the first place? was there any family conflict or a bad childhood that created this monster? all these questions and more are ignored and instead, the audience is served a cold helping of superficial cinema that barely scratches the surface of this world-reknown, earth-shattering event: the murder of a Beatle. I could have just watched the Discovery channel and learned more and not have had to suffer Lindsey Lohan's attempt at being a serious actor. Blah. October 21, 2008

Leto is SuperbPlayingTheFat,Scumbag,PIG

December8,1980 was the worst day of my life,and probally alot of others."Chapter 27 "brings back the horrible day when this Fat,DirtBag,PIG took away the most talented,peacefull,artist away from everyone who loved him.Jared Leto does a fantastic job playing this PIG,and even gained 60 pounds,but still looks so much better than the real scumbag PIG in person.(He also co produced the film)Lindsay Lohan also does a remarkable job.Both should have been nominated for Oscars.We all know the ending of this movie,I just wish it could have been a happy one,and Chapman would have killed himself in that hotel room. October 18, 2008

Unpleasant in the Extreme

Sean Lennon was far too kind in calling this movie "tacky." Especially considering one particularly appalling scene that is so gratuitous that it leaves you second guessing what you have just witnessed. Indeed, it is impossible to fathom what it must feel like to watch a movie in which an obnoxious filmmaker concocts a scene where the assassin of your father shakes hands with an actor portraying you as a young child. But this is exactly what writer/director J.P. Schaefer did to Sean Lennon. The term "rape kit" springs to mind.

Schaefer's other offenses against humanity include naming Lindsay Lohan's fictional and improbable character "Jude" (as in "Hey, Jude," as he has Jared Leto's Mark David Chapman say to her at one point), casting an actor named Mark (Lindsay) Chapman to play John Lennon and having Jared Leto do the De Niro-as-Bickle gun-drawing thing (or would Schaefer prefer the term "homage") in front of a mirror. Is a Schaefer-helmed John Hinckley biopic in our miserable future?

Perhaps the worst thing about this atrocity for the average viewer (i.e. people other than the violated members of the Lennon family) is that it is relentlessly boring. 84 minutes of listening to a Razzie-worthy Jared Leto ramble out his insane inner dialogue is an interminable hell you will want to avoid.

Awful, awful, awful. October 13, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...