Some news on that stupid movie with Lindsay Lohan. Instead of making a crap movie about his murderer, why don't they try making a movie the celebrates Lennon's life? Something that's not sensational or tabloidish. God forbid they put any effort into that.  

New Film Chapter 27 branded an insult to John Lennon
January 25, 2007

'Chapter 27' - the new film about John Lennon's assassination - has been branded an insult to the music legend's memory.

J.P. Schaefer's movie - which depicts the former Beatle's murder in 1980 by deranged fan Mark David Chapman - premiered at the Sundance festival on Tuesday (23.01.07) after allegedly being rejected by other film festivals.

Fox News reporter Roger Friedman saw the movie and has blasted Schaefer for tarnishing Lennon's memory.

Friedman said: "J.P. Schaefer has managed to kill Lennon again. He's also made a boring, un-releasable movie that no one will ever see. Most of the audience struggled to remain awake during the film's lethargic 90 minutes."

Friedman brands Jared Leto's performance as Chapman as "inert", claiming the "once promising" actor "plays Chapman as a blob in tinted sunglasses".

He also accuses 'Chapter 27' of plagiarising J.D. Salinger's novel 'The Catcher in the Rye', from which the movie takes its name.

Chapman was carrying the 1951 book - which tackles such themes as the portrayal of sexuality, teenage angst and alienation - when he was arrested immediately after shooting Lennon and referred to the 27th chapter when police interviewed him.

Lindsay Lohan also appears in the film and Friedman claims she is wasted as a Beatles fan with a minor role in the film.

He said: "She's better off in rehab than wasting her talents on this junk.


Jared Leto as Chapman. I actually thought it was him for a second. Yuck.

I looked at this once!

Glanceing over it reminded me of what Chapman said!

To me--(To me)--He should not be given a 2nd thought!

This only promotes Chapman!

Much like the Hanaball & others!

Sad we live in a world were some --Have to praise these people!

I did not like what Duhmer did & to make a movie on him--just shows other sick minds what he did & how to get away with parts!

I will not suport this Chapman film!

This is the last I give it a though--I wipe my hands of this  movie & reveiws!

I think it's wrong to glorify what he did with a movie.

... or a book?

^ Yeah.
I've just got given a copy of the film - so I'll see what it's like .. although this era of John's life  is one I tend to not divulge in

I think this is the most horrific thing anybody could make a movie about.  

  I mean... one retard screwed up the whole world and people just think, oh that sounds like a great movie!

Personally I never ever want to see it. I don't want to remember him like that... and I sure in h-e-l-l don't want to give that "thing" recognition!

This is disgusting how anybody can want to make this kind
of thing! >:  It makes me so angry.
THis is to do with nothing about remembeing Lennon & i
dn't even want to think what happened on that awful december
night.
I wasen't even born when Lennon was taken from us but his music & words
have always helped me in life!
I spit on the makers!!

I agree with those who don't like the idea of this movie. I'll vote with my wallet and not see it. Best thing I can do.

I was so angry when I found out they made a movie about John's killer!! If i watched it (which I never ever will!) I'd be very tempted to shoot the TV screen! what in the hell was the nutjob that thought of the movie thinking?! I think all copies of the movie should be burnt and never spoken of again!!  

*calms down*

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?

I'll try to answer your question, Meanie! For me, it depends on what the focus of the movie is. If it's focusing on the killer, I feel it glamorizes the murderer. I think the last thing I want is more sickos in my society hoping to get their 15 minutes of fame, so I deliberately boycott these type of movies. I also boycott movies where the principal theme is a woman in jeopardy-- she's stalked, a rape victim, kidnapped, whatever. I feel it perpetuates the myth that women are helpless creatures that need rescuing. Anyone can be taken advantage of, but if a man were playing this role, it would be humiliating, whereas I think for many people seeing a woman in the same situation is titilating. So-- boycott!

That said, of your list, I did see the "Bonnie & Clyde" movie ages ago, with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. I still recall the ending-- very powerful, and our villains did get their comeuppance (and how!). I've never seen movies on the other killers, and I don't buy books about them, even though the ones on Ted Bundy and Charles Manson (in particular) are supposed to be very well written and fascinating reads. I met Ann Rule (author of the Ted Bundy book "The Stranger Beside Me"), and she actually started her book as a quest to understand this man she knew and worked with. Like, how could he do this? So in this case it's definitely a psychological exploration. My sister finds these engrossing and eats them up. I personally don't have the stomach for it.

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.

Did this help explain my aversion at all? Cheers.

Is their anyone else who really couldn't give a damn either way?

Don't give me that 'the whole world was screwed up' bit, that's bollocks.

I watched this film via torrents, and one of the reasons I did was because I understood it to be based on fact and transcripts of interviews with the killer, which it was. It follows the killer arriving in New York on December 5 1980 up until the fateful night of the 8th. Mainly I wanted to watch it because I wanted some insight and understanding about what happened. I thought it was important, as one affected like anyone here by John's death, to  put that senseless act into some kind of perspective for me personally. The acting wasn't the best I've seen but the point of the movie in my opinion wasn't for entertainment but rather an historical overview. In the end I thought it was well done. When it was over I felt sad and angry about what happened and not by the movie's existence. Even though I know quite a bit about the moments leading up to the killing, this movie offered a chronological view into that time.

Strange Fact:
There is a guy that plays a brief role as John Lennon outside the Dakota...damn near spitting image of him...the actor's name is Mark Chapman...weird.

Could you give me a link to the torrent please rook? I'd be interested in seeing this film.

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.

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.

Have people read about anything to do with the making of this movie? People not liking it has more to do with how poorly it was done and less to do with it being about Lennon's killer. The director tends to speculate as to what went on in this guys head. It's a fictionalized account of those three days. Where's the truth? It's probably hard to know. You'd be better off watching documentaries or reading old news articles if you want some insight into what went on in those few days. Which is easily done. It's extensively documented. I think you'll find that this guy is a narcissistic liar who identified and obsessed about some famous guy to the point of insanity. He knew the only way he'd ever be anything was to kill him. Read about stalkers if you want to know his state of mind. But really, it will never make sense because there is no sense to it. Some people are just damaged.

I think it's interesting that the director wants to TRY to understand and make sense of why this happened and that's what he's attempting. But really, what's the point. We could all speculate and come up with different things. I don't think it's possible to understand "why."

I don't care that they make a movie about this, but this one's got too much negative baggage to it for me to take it seriously. That's all I'm saying. And it should be taken with a huge grain of salt for those thinking it's accurate. And yes there is a difference when they make a movie on a historical figure and a pop star. The tendency towards sensationalism when making a movie about people like Lennon is much stronger than when making a movie about someone like, say, John Adams. Look at that horrible Doors movie from a few years back. Almost complete fiction.

BTW, I'm only just discussing this as this IS a discussion forum. I'm not trying to annoy anybody just trying to actually use the forum as intended. Debate and discussion. Right? Different points of view and all. Makes it interesting. No?

I agree

I haven't seen this film, but it strikes me that it would be enormously difficult to make a dramatically effective story out of any part of the life of Mark David Chapman. I know little about the man, but the bits I have read suggest that he was of an extraordinarily banal type: an isolated, self-absorbed obsessive with not much of a life. A human failure, in other words, whose sole claim to our attention is the fact that he murdered John Lennon to suit some internal logic perceivable only to himself. There is no inherent drama in this, and all you can do with it is simply exploit the pathos of Lennon's murder, or the fears of the audience, or use it as an excuse to moralize like a TV documentary journalist on the evening news about the lack of adequate "help'' for such people before they explode.

The opening of the synopsis at Rotten Tomatoes reads:

What went on in the mind of the man who felt compelled to assassinate John Lennon? Chapter 27 deftly pilots us into the dark psyche of Mark David Chapman the weekend before the December 8, 1980, shooting. Inspired by Chapman's recollections, and propelled by a haunting, tour-de-force...

This is all dreadful cliche: "dark psyche," "haunting, tour-de-force." I simply can't imagine anyone making something decent after having started with a premise like this. Exploitation, both of John and the film's audience, is all I'd expect.