Chapter 27 (2007) Reviews

• Chapter 27 (2007) BOMB

  JoeKarlosi2008-10-19

  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 ****

• Did This Film Really Need Making?

  jon5cts2008-04-03

  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.

• Reach Exceeds Grasp

  gabridl2007-04-06

  I wanted to watch this movie because, in 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 Caufield. "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 this 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, succeeds 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, or poor and rich, or even mobs and leaders. 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.

• Chapter 27; how could you?

  val-e-072007-08-09

  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.

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

  fostersbox2011-02-12

  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.)