Quoted from Mairi

I can honestly say I've never seen any of the movie Blue Meanie mentioned. I think it's wrong to profit from the horrible deaths of others. Last year or so the Canadian media was up in arms because they made a movie about Karla Holmolka (rapist and serial killer) and the movie flopped because no one wanted to see a film about such unspeakable atrocities.

You mean you've never seen a programme about Jack The Ripper? Or indeed any murderer?

First of all, as far as I can see only one person on this thread has seen this movie. I'd like to know what you thought Indy?

I don't see why you think it glamorizes Chapman, isn't the movie meant to look into his disjointed mind-set? I personally can't wait to see it. I'd love to know what the director made of him, so that I can make a rational decision about the film based on what I've actually seen. From reports that I've read Schaefer seems to have done a pretty good job of delving into Chapman's mind over the few days leading up to the murder. Nothing I've read so far suggests that Chapman has been glamorized.

Quoted from harihead

I'd be more inclined to see Chapter 27 if I knew it focused on the mindset of the killer. But... let's face it. I will never go. I just find dwelling on crazy people useless and upsetting.

How do you know it doesn't delve into the mind-set of the killer, if you haven't seen the film? And why is dwelling on crazy people upsetting? Try telling that to a psychiatrist. Is it because it's Lennon? Would it be OK if it was John Doe? And even if it's not exploring his mind and what drove him to do it; even if it's a crap movie, from what I've read Schaefer hardly seems to be glorifying Chapman. Hell, Bonnie & Clyde pretty much made them out to be a loveable couple, when the fact is they were brutal killers for nothing but financial gain.

I guess I'm merely defending the directors' right to make a movie. And I think it's a shame that people can make judgements on something that they haven't seen. Should we ban the making of movies like this then? And what next? War films? They've pretty much glamorized things over the years. John Wayne anyone?

Hands up if you've seen a Rocky movie? I happen to think that they glamorize what is essentially a brutal and barbaric sport that belongs in the dark ages. And I've seen a couple of them! I'd defend the directors' right to make them though.

Sorry if this got a bit disjointed!

BlueMeanie, it's okay! *puts you in a comfy chair, gets you a nice iced tea with lemon*

Somehow we seem to have jumped from my personal preference in movies to censorship.  First off, I don't believe in censorship.  I don't believe in banning anything.  Everything should be available for everyone to read and help them make their own judgments on things. Government is increasingly controlling the media in my country, and it terrifies me.  Freedom of speech (including art) is a cornerstone of a free nation.  You'll have to look hard to find a more vigorous defender of it than me.

That said, I don't have to read or view something simply because it's available.  My personal taste comes into play. As I said earlier, I am not intending not see Chapter 27 just because it deals with John Lennon. I've read about John's murder and have no wish to see it visualized on the screen.  These types of movies are upsetting for me. The most upsetting movie I saw was Dead Man Walking. The contrast between those two kids who were brutally murdered in the woods and their killer who was euthanized in these controlled conditions made me physically ill.  I wish I had never seen the movie.  Why on earth would I want to go to a movie that is certain to upset me?  The murder of anyone is upsetting. I wasn't particularly moved when John Lennon was murdered, other than being angry that another senseless murder had taken place.  I didn't become a Beatles "fan" until quite recently. I was upset by John's murder the way that I would be upset by anyone's murder. It's deplorable.

That said, Chapter 27 is being made for money.  It is a business concern.  It is not an educational documentary, but an entertainment alternative. I do not feel that I have to contribute my voluntary entertainment dollars to a venture that I feel will not entertain me. I already know that I don't like movies about murders or killers.  Why should I have to see this one, just because it happens to feature John Lennon as the victim?

You don't have to defend the director's right to make whatever movie he wants-- not to me.  I support and encourage as many people as possible to make whatever they want that they feel has merit in this world--books, art, films.  But as a consumer I will use my discretion and support those ventures that I choose to support.  I will see Spiderman 3 with its cartoon violence. I will not see Chapter 27 with its real-life murder focus. That is my choice.  

Quoted from BlueMeanie

You mean you've never seen a programme about Jack The Ripper? Or indeed any murderer?

Sorry to bump an old post, but I must say that no, I have not. I've read the odd magazine article or book, but I hardly think that those are in the same league as movies or TV programs that sensationalize such issues to the point where reality and entertainment become blurred.
Making movies etc about killers is just giving them a voice. Everyone has heard of Ted Bundy, but can you name even one of his victims? I don't care whether the victim is John Lennon or John Doe. What I care about is the media surrounding these killers. Don't you think that the Dawson killer or the Virgina Tech killer were at least somewhat inspired by the media frenzy surrounding the Columbine kids? Putting murderers in the spotlight is just giving them a platform, giving them a voice. And that's exactly what they want!

saw some trailers looks like a good movie, gonna look for it now.

Mark lindsay Chapman stars as John Lennon in the movie

I didn't think John was being acted out at all. I thought it was just clips of him. Maybe I saw a different trailer .
I actually want to see this movie, I don't think it's glorifying Chapman I think it's trying to tie loose ends as to why he did it.

GOD this pisses me off LINDSAY LOHAN. COME ON.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE HER!!

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I haven't seen this movie, but some of the comments here leave me perplexed. Are you slamming it because it's a poor movie (which by all accounts it is), or because it's about the murderer of John Lennon? It appears to be the latter. Would you all be so angry if this was a made for TV documentary on Discovery? There is no reason why a film about Mark Chapman should not be made, just because he murdered one of your hero's.

Raise your hand if you've never seen a movie about any of these:

Ted Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Charles Manson
Jeffrey Dahmer
David Berkowitz
The Boston Strangler
Bonnie & Clyde
Billy The Kid
Jack The Ripper
Lee Harvey Oswald/Jack Ruby

These were all real killers, and they killed real people too! But with the exception of Lee Harvey Oswald/Jack Ruby, they killed ordinary people, people we've never heard of. So is it OK to make a movie about them? Those people didn't matter so much? They were all someone's father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, just like Lennon.

So this is a bad movie because someone dared to make one about the death of your hero?

To clarify, this movie is a fictionalized account based on some fact. It does glorify Chapman because it tries to humanize him through his encounter with some fictional fan he meets outside the Dakota. At least from what I've read, that's the case. So that alone makes me weary. That and the fact that it sound poorly done.

I have nothing against such films and yes, I've seen films about some of those you mentioned. I've also seen movies about the Holocaust and other horrific events created and carried out by man. I'm forever trying to figure out what drives men to such lengths. It disturbs me that there really is not rhyme or reason. It just seems to be pure evil or insanity.

I would be less inclined to put this movie on because, yes, it has to do John Lennon's murder. I remember it all too clearly and obviously it affected people on a very intense level. I cannot even begin to explain why. Maybe because he represented certain things coming to an end, maybe people saw him grow up and felt attached, maybe his music touched people so profoundly that losing him was losing a part of themselves? I have no idea. It is fascinating though. Maybe I'd watch this movie if it came on cable. I don't know. This guy, like the Son of Sam, WANT recognition. They want to be famous. That annoys me too. Why should they be sitting in their cells feeling accomplished? They're also prolific liars and any film based on THEIR words is bound to be full of inaccuracies. That bugs me too. Now I feel like I'm rambling, but whatever. Oh, and Lindsey Lohan being in it doesn't help. Not a big fan.

Really though, I'd like to see a movie on Lennon's life. Something accurate. Something WELL DONE. With both the good and the bad. And yes, including his death. I think he was a fascinating human being whose image has been distorted. Another movie about his death (crucifixion) won't help people remember he was an actual human being.

Quoted from Sandra

To clarify, this movie is a fictionalized account based on some fact. It does glorify Chapman because it tries to humanize him through his encounter with some fictional fan he meets outside the Dakota. At least from what I've read, that's the case. So that alone makes me weary. That and the fact that it sound poorly done.

I don't really want to get into all this again, but according to the account that I've read - Let Me Take You Down by Jack Jones - he dod befriend a young woman outside the Dakota a few days before the killing. Of course, I have no idea if it's an accurate account.

Quoted from Sandra

Really though, I'd like to see a movie on Lennon's life. Something accurate. Something WELL DONE. With both the good and the bad. And yes, including his death. I think he was a fascinating human being whose image has been distorted. Another movie about his death (crucifixion) won't help people remember he was an actual human being.

How do you judge what's accurate? We have Cynthia's account of things, May Pang's, and Yoko's. And we know how Yoko seems to come up with new 'facts' each time she's interviewed. Maybe it could just be more sympathetic towards him?

NOT ACCURATE: "John was a saint"
ACCURATE: "John was a human being"

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I don't really want to get into all this again, but according to the account that I've read - Let Me Take You Down by Jack Jones - he dod befriend a young woman outside the Dakota a few days before the killing. Of course, I have no idea if it's an accurate account.



How do you judge what's accurate? We have Cynthia's account of things, May Pang's, and Yoko's. And we know how Yoko seems to come up with new 'facts' each time she's interviewed. Maybe it could just be more sympathetic towards him?

Aww, come on. I think you know what I mean. Semantics.

I can't summon any interest at all in this film.

what? some one made a film premoting mark chapmann?!?!? thats a terrible and sick-minded thing! we all are sposed to miss john lennon, and not his killer who remains behind bars(his rightful spot)

omg people it aint setting out to promote anything it as a movie, showing the days leading up to the murder of John Lennon, if people see it as promotion then thats down to them.

there been plenty movies made of days leading up to famous peoples deaths and there will be plenty more, and im sure you have watched them and not batted an eyelid and now because its John Lennon its suddenly all wrong and distasteful.

exactly I care about that John Lennon was killed but not that they're making a movie about it. It's no big deal, if you don't want to see don't if you do then great I do because I want to know what went on in Mark Chapman's messed up mind.