"Chapter 27" tells the true story of Mark David Chapman, and the three days leading up to his assassination of John Lennon. He put four bullets into one of the most beloved and respected rock and roll icons in the world, changed history for the worst, and after the movie is done, we still don't quite understand why he did it.
The most frustrating part of "Chapter 27" is that it is ambitious enough to take on a compelling true story, but somehow manages the drag the story's pacing by weighing it down with blatant egomania. It starts out on December 6, 1980, with Chapman (Jared Leto) taking a taxi into New York City. Throughout the movie, Chapman goes from hanging out in front of The Dakota, where John Lennon lived, to his hotel room and back again, stopping occasionally in insignificant places in between.
The problem with this movie is not its historical accuracy. Did Chapman spend these three days meandering around before shooting Lennon? Yes, he probably did. What I want to know, however, is at least a little bit about Chapman's background. Chapman just hanging out in his hotel room is about as interesting as Ted Bundy eating a bowl of cereal. I want to know more about his obsession with the Beatles. Why did he choose to target Lennon as opposed to Paul McCartney, George Harrison, or even Ringo Starr for that matter? You can look it up, but you're never given a clear answer in this film.
Plus, I really wanted to know a little bit about his life in Hawaii, where he lived before the shooting. He was married, so why did he cheat on his wife with a prostitute? Obviously there was something amiss in his marriage, but the movie only hints at the problem, not the cause.
Perhaps most of all, Chapman obviously sees a lot of Holden Caulfield, J.D. Salinger's immortal character from "The Catcher In The Rye", in himself. After all, throughout the film, Leto quotes Caulfield verbatim, from asking a cab driver about how fish survive the winter, to dismissing movies as being "so fake". However, what is never explained, and what needed to be, is this: WHAT DOES HOLDEN CAULFIELD HAVE TO DO WITH KILLING SOMEONE?
I happen to love "The Catcher In The Rye". In fact, I've read it twice, and I never came across any line in that book that suggested Caulfield wanted to shoot someone. Caulfield wasn't perfect, but he certainly was no killer. Obviously Chapman misinterpreted the book, but what this movie failed to explain was what part, or parts, of the novel Chapman fixated upon to get that message.
All these things are frustrating because this movie should have been better. Jared Leto, after all, is a really good actor who has been in some great films ("Fight Club" (1999), "American Psycho" (2000), "Requium For a Dream" (2000)). In this movie, he went the route that Robert De Niro took in "Raging Bull" (1980) by intentionally putting on 60 pounds for this one role. He also adopts a creepy, whispering Southern accent heard throughout the film. Unfortunately, although Chapman was a true egomaniac in real life, Leto's attempt to portray him seems too vain. As a result, his performance comes off as self-aggrandizing as his stint in 30 Seconds To Mars.
Lindsay Lohan, surprisingly enough, is really good in this movie as Jude, a Beatles fan who is more level headed than Chapman was. Jude was probably a fictional character, as I can't find any information as to whether a woman named Jude actually existed even on Wikipedia. Still, when the movie ended, I wanted to know what happened to her. I already know what became of Chapman.
The film's final mistake at the end is fatal. It assumes that the climax, Chapman shooting Lennon, is its own reward. You see Leto point a gun, you hear a gunshot, and the screen goes black. You see some real life footage of fans mourning Lennon interspersed with newsreels from the time and an admittedly startling shot of Leto, as Chapman, looking directly into the camera talking about how he's the victim. What you don't see, however, is Chapman sitting down on the sidewalk reading "The Catcher In The Rye" before the police apprehend him. Chapman actually did this, and I find it more fascinating than anything. He didn't run away, and he could have. That fact alone speaks more about Chapman's egomania than Leto's gradually tired voice-over monologues ever could.
Even worse is the on-screen epilogue, which states that Chapman is still in prison and is now a born-again Christian. Well, isn't that great! He was moronic enough to kill a rock and roll legend, and now he's repenting. Whoop dee doo! Such an uninspired epilogue is key to understanding what went wrong in this film: it never tells us anything we don't already know. Don't the filmmakers know that Chapman was a fool who played it cool by making the world a little colder?
The most frustrating part of "Chapter 27" is that it is ambitious enough to take on a compelling true story, but somehow manages the drag the story's pacing by weighing it down with blatant egomania. It starts out on December 6, 1980, with Chapman (Jared Leto) taking a taxi into New York City. Throughout the movie, Chapman goes from hanging out in front of The Dakota, where John Lennon lived, to his hotel room and back again, stopping occasionally in insignificant places in between.
The problem with this movie is not its historical accuracy. Did Chapman spend these three days meandering around before shooting Lennon? Yes, he probably did. What I want to know, however, is at least a little bit about Chapman's background. Chapman just hanging out in his hotel room is about as interesting as Ted Bundy eating a bowl of cereal. I want to know more about his obsession with the Beatles. Why did he choose to target Lennon as opposed to Paul McCartney, George Harrison, or even Ringo Starr for that matter? You can look it up, but you're never given a clear answer in this film.
Plus, I really wanted to know a little bit about his life in Hawaii, where he lived before the shooting. He was married, so why did he cheat on his wife with a prostitute? Obviously there was something amiss in his marriage, but the movie only hints at the problem, not the cause.
Perhaps most of all, Chapman obviously sees a lot of Holden Caulfield, J.D. Salinger's immortal character from "The Catcher In The Rye", in himself. After all, throughout the film, Leto quotes Caulfield verbatim, from asking a cab driver about how fish survive the winter, to dismissing movies as being "so fake". However, what is never explained, and what needed to be, is this: WHAT DOES HOLDEN CAULFIELD HAVE TO DO WITH KILLING SOMEONE?
I happen to love "The Catcher In The Rye". In fact, I've read it twice, and I never came across any line in that book that suggested Caulfield wanted to shoot someone. Caulfield wasn't perfect, but he certainly was no killer. Obviously Chapman misinterpreted the book, but what this movie failed to explain was what part, or parts, of the novel Chapman fixated upon to get that message.
All these things are frustrating because this movie should have been better. Jared Leto, after all, is a really good actor who has been in some great films ("Fight Club" (1999), "American Psycho" (2000), "Requium For a Dream" (2000)). In this movie, he went the route that Robert De Niro took in "Raging Bull" (1980) by intentionally putting on 60 pounds for this one role. He also adopts a creepy, whispering Southern accent heard throughout the film. Unfortunately, although Chapman was a true egomaniac in real life, Leto's attempt to portray him seems too vain. As a result, his performance comes off as self-aggrandizing as his stint in 30 Seconds To Mars.
Lindsay Lohan, surprisingly enough, is really good in this movie as Jude, a Beatles fan who is more level headed than Chapman was. Jude was probably a fictional character, as I can't find any information as to whether a woman named Jude actually existed even on Wikipedia. Still, when the movie ended, I wanted to know what happened to her. I already know what became of Chapman.
The film's final mistake at the end is fatal. It assumes that the climax, Chapman shooting Lennon, is its own reward. You see Leto point a gun, you hear a gunshot, and the screen goes black. You see some real life footage of fans mourning Lennon interspersed with newsreels from the time and an admittedly startling shot of Leto, as Chapman, looking directly into the camera talking about how he's the victim. What you don't see, however, is Chapman sitting down on the sidewalk reading "The Catcher In The Rye" before the police apprehend him. Chapman actually did this, and I find it more fascinating than anything. He didn't run away, and he could have. That fact alone speaks more about Chapman's egomania than Leto's gradually tired voice-over monologues ever could.
Even worse is the on-screen epilogue, which states that Chapman is still in prison and is now a born-again Christian. Well, isn't that great! He was moronic enough to kill a rock and roll legend, and now he's repenting. Whoop dee doo! Such an uninspired epilogue is key to understanding what went wrong in this film: it never tells us anything we don't already know. Don't the filmmakers know that Chapman was a fool who played it cool by making the world a little colder?