A film about Mark David Chapman in the days leading up to the infamous murder of Beatle John Lennon.A film about Mark David Chapman in the days leading up to the infamous murder of Beatle John Lennon.A film about Mark David Chapman in the days leading up to the infamous murder of Beatle John Lennon.
- Awards
- 2 wins
Le Clanché du Rand
- Helen
- (as Le Clanche DuRand)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaJared Leto gained 67 pounds for the role. At times he was confined to a wheelchair due to so much added weight.
- GoofsChapman offers to take Paul Goreshs photo with John Lennon saying "I bet you've never had that!" Paul confirms this saying "No, I've never had that!" In real life Paul Goresh had his photo taken with John Lennon on the 17th November 1980.
- Quotes
John Lennon: [Signing an album for Mark David Chapman] Is that all?
Mark David Chapman: [Stunned and shaky] Yeah. Thanks.
John Lennon: You sure? That's all?
Mark David Chapman: Yes. That's all. Thanks John.
John Lennon: You're welcome.
[Turns and leaves]
- Crazy creditsIn the credits, all of the people are credited for their characters, however the final listings are as follows: John Lennon..................Mark Lindsay Chapman and Jared Leto
- ConnectionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert: 21/Chapter 27/Flawless/Stop-Loss/Run Fatboy Run (2008)
- SoundtracksRun Rudolph Run
Written by Marvin Brodie and Johnny Marks
Performed by Chuck Berry
Published by St. Nicholas Music Inc. (ASCAP)
Courtesy of Geffen Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Featured review
I wanted to watch this movie because, by 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 Caulfield. "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 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, is right 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. 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.
The movie gets a lot of things right. The preppy clothes, the look of New York, the bad food, the awkward dialog all 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, is right 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. 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.
Details
Box office
- Budget
- CA$5,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $56,215
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $13,910
- Mar 30, 2008
- Gross worldwide
- $187,488
- Runtime1 hour 24 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content