Canadian Press calls it on Chapter 27
Please don't support Peace Arch Entertainment - Boycott Chapter 27
'Chapter 27' offers zero insight into Lennon assassin
Jared Leto put on some 60 pounds to play John Lennon assassin MDC, a feat that some have likened to Robert De Niro's transformative weight gain for "Raging Bull."
Well, there's nothing raging about "Chapter 27."
The feature debut from writer-director Jarrett Schaefer is a lethargic, ponderous slog that feels much longer than its brief running time. Schaefer relies too heavily on voiceover to convey MDC's inner state, but he provides little insight.
We know MDC was obsessed with J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" and even went so far as to believe he was the book's protagonist, Holden Caulfield. But over the three days in December 1980 when MDC stands outside the Dakota apartment building in New York, waiting for Lennon to emerge so he can shoot him, he thinks clunky, literal thoughts about the fact that - you guessed it! - he believes he's Holden and wants to kill John Lennon.
Leto does resemble MDC with his black hair, double chin and oversized glasses. Schaefer makes sure to have him loll about the hotel room several times in his tighty-whities to show off his jelly belly and his man boobs, the price this typically lean actor is willing to pay for his art. But mimicry alone isn't acting, and the raspy whisper-scream he uses for his interior monologues is annoyingly gimmicky - and it grates quickly.
Lindsay Lohan appears in a few scenes as a Lennon fan named - wait for it - Jude, who also stands outside the Dakota all day and inexplicably can't figure out that Chapman is one odd dude. It makes absolutely no sense that she would befriend this obviously off-putting person; aside from her Lennon obsession - which many fostered back then and some do still - she seems like a perky, sweet, well-adjusted young woman. (And since "Chapter 27" was filmed a couple years ago, long before Lohan's well-documented troubles with the law and substance abuse, it serves as a bittersweet snapshot of a simpler time for the magnetic young actress.)
Certainly, we know there's something seriously wrong with this guy. We know it before we even walk into the theatre. And the knowledge that he's going to empty a revolver into Lennon's back by the time the film's done should provide a palpable sense of tension from the very beginning. Think of the sensations of dread and fear the excellent "United 93" caused, for example.
Schaefer squanders that possibility completely with his languid pacing and simplistic script, which he based on Jack Jones' collection of interviews, "Let Me Take You Down: Inside the Mind of Mark David Chapman." (The film's title comes from "The Catcher in the Rye," which ended at chapter 26.)
"I'm going to tell you what happened to me right around last Christmas, those three days in New York City," Chapman narrates at the film's start. And later, as he's walking toward Lennon's home: "I went up to the Dakota, the strange building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan." Later still, to no one in particular: "I'm going to kill John Lennon."
You don't say!
Probably the most ironic (and cringe-inducing) statement of all comes as Chapman is railing against the movies: "I hate the movies. They're phoney." Right, except it's the unwatchable ones - such as "Chapter 27" - that draw attention to their phoniness.
There is one scene, though, that offers a bit of intrigue. The night before the murder, Chapman picks up the phone and orders a prostitute to come to his hotel room. He figures he wants a little female companionship, since it may be his last opportunity. He wants her to be exotic and he doesn't want her to talk - he'll pay her extra if she doesn't talk.
Once she arrives you wonder, what's going to happen? This person who is so socially maladjusted, how will he behave in this situation?
For a moment or two, it's almost enough to make you imagine a better movie.
One star out of four.
Remember John, not his killer!!
Boycott Chapter 27!!!
Stop Peace Arch Entertainment
Labels: boycott chapter 27, chapter 27, Jared Leto, jarrett Schaefer, john flock, john lennon, lindsay lohan
posted by Howard at 3:15 PM
.png){kind=small}
11 Comments:
Sounds like you didn't listen to your own preachings and went and saw the movie.
Ge over it, your whinging isn't going to make any difference in the slightest.
You're upset that they are "humanizing" John Lennon's killer? So only the people you deem fit get to have the label human is that it?
I do not condone the actions of Chapman and think he is a sick man who deserves to be in prison, however, to stand on your almighty perch and say he isn't human? You're the disgusting one.
FYI: I'm just about the biggest Beatles fan you'll ever find and I've heard Paul utter the name of Chapman numerous times in interviews discussing his old friend.
What a load of bollocks! The movie is made, let people make up their own minds about seeing it!
Paul McCartney mentions John Lennon's killer when it's convenient for him, and he does it rather often.
Mark David Chapman is in prison where he belongs, and prison is where he'll remain. NO movie ever made is going to convince anyone this monster should be allowed to go free!
As for Jared Leto's weight gain and health issues - funny how no one minded when Renee Zellwegger gained all that weight to play Bridget Jones - and she did it twice!! Leto wanted the part and did what he had to do to get it. More power to the man for having the courage of his convictions. Would you have questioned DeNiro for gaining weight to star in Raging Bull? I doubt it.
Let the movie be seen by those who want to see it, and the rest can go watch Horton Hears a Who!
If more folks thought like you and your ilk, the name John Lennon would mean absolutely nothing. It is a Jared Leto movie about the madness of Chapman. Not a Chapman movie.
Attempting to deny someones right to practice their art, and to bring that art to the masses, sounds similar to the parental/theocratic protests of the early 60s. During they were boycotting/petitioning against/railing against, the Beatles.
Had they succeeded as you hope to, John Lennon would have been relegated to minor stardom on the other side of the pond.
You don't like it, thats great. You dont agree with Leto, thats great as well. Skip this movie and see the one in the next theater. But dont make a hypocrite of yourself by denying an artist the right to be.
This is rich. You have ads in the sidebar whoring Lennon goods.
Whats richer is the ad in the sidebar about stopping internet censorship and protecting free speech.
You do know that making a movie falls under the "free speech" umbrella, right?
Hypocrite much?
John Lennon was a staunch defender of freedom of speech, peace, a war against capitalism and many other good causes. My opinion is he would not boycott this film. This is a part of American history. People need to make up thier own minds if they want to go to the movie. Personally i can't wait to see it.
YOKO ONO HAS NO PROBLEM WITH SELLING PRINTS OF JOHN LENNON'S ART PIECES FOR HER OWN MONARTARY GAIN. PAUL MCCARTNEY HAS TALKED PUBLICALLY ABOUT MDC MANY TIMES, I HAVE HEARD HIM. AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO SEE THIS FILM. WHERE IS IT BEING SHOWN? I CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE!!!
wow. that is really all i can say to this diatribe. anyone who takes this seriously should consider that the creator of this content uses perez hilton as a credible source for an opinion and information.
The only reason not to see it is because it is supposedly a terrible movie, badly written. But as far as Chapman is concerned, he is human and we would do well by trying to understand what makes people like him do the things they do. Some say "no use trying" because they are just crazy and there is no here or there to what they do" but that never gets anyone anywhere. See the movie, then come home and listen to the Beatles.
Treadmarkz
Beatlesjournals.com
I just saw the movie this afternoon at the Angelika Film Center in NYC. I give it 3 and half stars. *Very* good movie! I think there were about 4 other people in the theatre besides me so your boycott may be working. Shame, because it is such a good movie!
For the poll: I choose option number 4: No one who promotes free speech should call upon people to boycott art!
Do at least take the blue ribbon of your site. Hypocrite.
Post a Comment
<< Home