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.

Slow and Painful. Two words that aptly describe the assassination of John Lennons.

Acting: Jared Leto is Mark Chapman. The weight gain, the accent, the mannerisms, the eccentric disturbing yet intriguing eyes. His acting is nothing short of excellent. Lindsay Lohan is believable, however, her character is esssentially non-existent.

Directing: Loneliness. The feeling is loneliness is excellently captured by director J.P. Schaefer. I don't want to compare this work to Taxi Driver but both pieces contain a broken, lonely main character in New York. The feeling of loneliness is beautifully capture. I felt lonely watching this movie, i felt all alone. Something i haven't felt since watching Taxi Driver.

Script: It won't be an Oscar winning script. You won't leave the theatre feeling mystified as you did after you saw fight club and the usual suspects. However, the script fits perfectly. Critics have crucified Chapter 27 saying it does not give an in-depth look into the mind of the killer. But that's not the point of the film, Mark Chapman even admits this a few minutes into the film.

If you feel it's too soon to watch a movie about John Lennon don't watch it. The actual killing scene, although not graphic, is very powerful. But if you have the choice of seeing this movie, give it a go.

Step into the mind of a deranged stalker…Listen to the tortured, obsessive, thoughts as he rambles on and on.

That's the premise of this strange but well-done film about the man who killed John Lennon. If you're looking for a good date movie, forget it—unless your date is a forensic psychologist or a CSI fan. This film is not "entertainment." The director's intent was to explore the internal state of Mark David Chapman in the three days leading up to his murder of Lennon.

For those who are upset that this film was ever made, be assured that it in no way glorifies Chapman. Though the director wants us to empathize, i.e., understand the mind of the killer, he does not try for sympathy. Chapman is presented as the pathetic loser he actually was. Jared Leto, who gained 60 pounds for the role (the resemblance is eerie) gives us a portrayal of a weird, annoying pest. So annoying in fact that it's hard to believe that Jude, the Lindsay Lohan character (who may nor may not have existed), would want to pal around with him. I guess she is supposed to feel sorry for him.

The other Chapman—Mark Lindsay Chapman (no comment on the name, that's been done to death, pardon the expression, elsewhere) is equally good in his all too brief role as John Lennon. As the director, J.P. Shaefer, has said elsewhere, he wanted someone to play Lennon as a real person, not an icon. Mark Lindsay Chapman's portrayal is down-to-earth and matter of fact—just like the real Lennon. He sounds eerily like the real Lennon too. MLC is a brilliant choice and cosmically appropriate. He was chosen from a field of 200 to play Lennon in a TV movie back in 1988 (when he was calling himself Mark Lindsay). When Yoko Ono found out his real name, she fired him—bad karma. Now it has come full circle and MLC finally gets to play the role--almost as if it was his destiny.

The film is somewhat artsy (which is both good and bad) but it is fairly good at capturing the essence the obsessive stalker mentality. Leto is excellent in the role, making you believe that you are actually seeing Mark David Chapman. But if you want to know why he did it, you'll have to look elsewhere. It does not explore Chapman's background—his religious fanaticism, his teenage obsession with Lennon, or the crushing disappointment when Lennon announced jokingly that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Chapter 27 won't be everyone's cup of mocha latte. It's disturbing and weird—just like Mark David Chapman. It's not a film you will "like," but it is a film that you may find interesting. It may not give insight in to the "why" but it does paint a striking picture of the "how." Arcania

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.

I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.

Starring Jared Leto as Mark Chapman, it follows him over the course of a few days until December 8, 1980 when he killed John Lennon.

It was pretty good, but nothing special. Jared Leto did a nice job as Chapman and was in virtually every frame of the film. Lindsay Lohan played a minor role as one of the fellow Lennon fans, but she's barely in the film. The film could really work as a one man show on stage.

The problem with the film is that it's very repetitive. At 84 minutes, it's pretty much 84 minutes of Chapman narrating, "I have to meet John Lennon,I have to kill John Lennon." I don't know much about the real Mark Chapman, and I don't know if this film is extremely accurate, but there could have been a better way to tell the story.

Overall, I was pretty disappointed with this film, it's an okay movie but it could have been so much better.

I've read just about every possible comment anyone can make about this film, from stupid, insipid, tasteless trash to slow, minimalist masterpiece of modern cinema. I should come out and say I've loved every performance Jared Leto has ever given, and this appears to be his biggest, boldest effort yet, gaining well over 50 pounds to play the character. Was it a fruitless waste of time and danger of health, or a triumphant success? Only time will tell. Right now the film has been poorly received by critics and masses as a boring and simplified look at a loner WITH a cause. But for me, that lead performance was a celebratory success which transcends all the banal pondering and mundane isolation and delivers a glimpse to the man behind the murder of arguably the most acclaimed musical artist of the 20th century. Any other actor would've portrayed the man as insane and raucous but sympathetic. Leto turns him into something more -- a yearning, indulgent, substandard, pathetic, arrogant, misunderstood, underestimated, and yes, insane man.

Throughout the film we follow Leto as he lives and breathes every minute of New York City before he slowly begins to drown beneath the pressures of his own social awkwardness and the surrounding annoyance of the people trying to behinder his one dream... receive an autograph from John Lennon. The film develops an atmosphere where his optimism resonates an aura of pessimism because his determination is such a futile endeavor and the inevitable aftermath is dragged along with every step he takes. Eventually, this building of tension collapses on itself when he begins to develop a predictably doomed relationship with a New Yorker girl, played well by Lindsay Lohan. It would've felt like a parable of romance were I not already aware of the proceeding outcome. So rather than being heartbreaking, it feels conventional because we know all along that she will leave him to trigger the murder. That's not what I define as ambiguity.

The film also falters with its numerous long-running narrative soliloquies which turn surreal and sometimes descend into obvious lyricism. He spends much of the film discussing his social isolation, his desperation, complaining about the banalities of his life, and his feelings of homesick. Instead of feeling insightful, they feel dreary, Like I'm reading an old man's diary rather than entering the mind of a psychopath. But what maintains the key intrigue behind all the mundane babble is the manner of Jay Leto's narration, which always compels me to see beyond the dialogue and take a long hard glimpse at a man who has something to say but doesn't how to say it sanely, who wants to express himself but can never sum up the right words to explain why he seems so obsessive-compulsive and antisocial without coming across as one or the other. I almost (*almost*) feel like I could relate to him because Leto's vigorous and dynamic performance was just such a human touch.

And now, the climax of the film. The whole shebang of wandering, outbursts, and epiphanies all lead to the killing of John Lennon itself. We witness the events leading up to Leto's convincing final transformation through flashy editing and blaring music as he pulls out his gun and shoots the man down whilst he walks drunkenly to the entrance of his hotel. The film ends as he's arrested and forced into a police car.

There's little exploitation in this film, except maybe during its final scenes. It tries to be slow and intelligent and begins to feel obnoxiously pretentious. That fabulous performance really deserved some sort of Oscar recognition, it's a rare and pure and beautiful depiction of obsessive admiration. His performance pretty much exceeds his own characterization, a stunning achievement because he's in pretty much every shot of the film.

But what did we all learn from this movie? We didn't learn much at all, actually, we were merely given a different perspective to challenge our prevailing thoughts of the event. While sometimes it feels overtly sympathetic and sometimes just simply pondering, I do believe its outstanding performance conquers my applaud, while little else redeems it as but a sad and slightly sensationalized depiction of the tragedy.

A rather contemptible recreation of events in the disturbing life of John Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman. As portrayed by Jared Leto (a disciplined, dedicated actor who gained some 60 pounds for the role), Chapman is a suicidal, overweight ex-student from Georgia by way of Texas who believed himself to be the embodiment of Holden Caulfield, the anti-hero celebrated by J. D. Salinger in his book "The Catcher in the Rye". By killing a celebrity, Chapman felt he would finally gain all the attention he'd been deprived of in life. Leto plays him as a schizophrenic drifter with a short fuse, a man so alienated from the real world that he puts down the rich and famous for being phony without ever realizing his own deluded behavior. Without a doubt, extremely queasy and disturbing material, yet the film isn't particularly enlightening or incisive on any level. Writer-director J.P. Schaefer stages the entire picture as a build-up to Chapman's final release of fury, sort of like 'the ultimate event'. We get nothing in the wake of the senseless killing except actual news footage from December 1980 (with pictures of the real John Lennon held up by the crowds). Schaefer exploits the grief in these archival clips simply to cap his own movie off, while the actor playing Lennon (briefly glimpsed) is named Mark Lindsay Chapman... Is nothing sacred for filmmakers anymore? The melodrama on display here is meant to squeeze and prod us, and to keep us in suspense, but the sensationalistic tactics come through loudly and cheaply. *1/2 from ****

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 ****

I wasn't sure what to expect of this movie, given the reviews that were all over the place. I was prepared for it to be dark, and for the narrative to not necessarily be straight-line. But... I wasn't prepared to like it as much as I did.

Yes, the movie doesn't give you any answers, that much of the criticism is true. But in the end, I think it's more satisfying that way. We get a little glimpse at a person who committed an inexplicable act, and maybe know a little more about him, but in the end, do we really understand? No. And that's fine. Sometimes we just DON'T know the answers to everything.

Jared Leto's performance is amazing, and well worth seeing even were the movie much worse than it is. He goes to some other place entirely, and shows us what it's like there - which, in my mind, IS great acting. Lindsey Lohan is quite good in her role, but the part is very limited - the movie belongs to Jared.

It's a shame this movie wasn't seen more widely; it certainly deserves to be.

I read somewhere that the actor who plays the main character here gained a lot of weight for the role. Yeah, he's unrecognizeable with his new weight and haircut. Good work on that.

The film follows Mark David Chapman, the murderer of John Lennon a few days before committing the act that would earn him an article on Wikipedia that would be read for generations to come.

It portrays Chapman as an obsessive who's internally oscillating chaotically between a desire to kill John Lennon and adoration of the man. His interactions with other people are presented as awkward and uncomfortable exchanges.

The actor effectively makes this character very creepy. He has a slow raspy voice and he usually looks absent-minded in conversations with others, as if he were focused on internal obsessions.

The other actors are also strong and it was a good decision to barely show John Lennon's character on screen.

It's mostly a stream of consciousness and interactions - it's hard to predict that the main character even wants to commit the murder unless you know story already - so it's not a movie which is either meaningful or instructive. Nevertheless, it's never boring. It's interesting as a psychological portrayal of an obsessed man descending into madness or just an awkward guy acting inappropriately in social situations.

Honourable Mentions: The King of Comedy (1983). Honestly I don't remember this movie, I saw it a long time ago, but I think it was pretty good. It's also about a criminally obsessed fan who meets his idol.

Just caught the world premiere at Sundance tonight. At the Question and Answer with the director and lead actor, the audience asked two categories of questions. Either, "what drove you to make this movie" and "what did you learn about Chapman that is not already known" on one hand or "how many pounds did Jared Lito gain/lose to play the part" on the other. The actor Jared had more to say about the hardship of the physical aspects of this role than the director Jared had to say about the "why" of the movie other than some vague attempt to humanize Mark David Chapman and to show that his motivation apparently came from his sick adherence to the words of John Lennon and Salinger's Catcher In The Rye.

But such is already common knowledge gleaned from any standard article written about Chapman's murder of Lennon along with his last few days up until the shooting. The director admitted to no contact from the Lennon family or even with Chapman himself--why humanize someone you don't even care to meet? So, the audience wondered, what was the point? No wonder the most interesting thing to the audience the film was Jared the actor's weight commitment to the role.

Excellent acting throughout, especially Ms. Lohan's work, and solid technical film-making. But nothing interesting, thoughtful, insightful, exposing or illuminating to see.

A film about a madman causing pain and grief to a someone and their family, or in this case to millions worldwide, that sheds light as to how such person got to such a state is one thing, but one that that does nothing but execute a common knowledge play-by-play of the killer's last few days, a "Passion of the Chapman" if you will--and even that gives this film too much credit--does not seem to have a reason except possibly dull sensationalism. I say dull because, if not, wouldn't such a film have been made over twenty years ago?

A well done, well acted wasteful drag of a movie.

Chapter 27 (2007)

** (out of 4)

Jared Leto gained 60-pounds to play Mark David Chapman, the man who murdered John Lennon. The film takes place the three days leading up to the murder as we see Chapman battle his own demons in trying to make up his mind on whether or not to kill Lennon. The screenplay, by director Shaefer, tries very hard to be dark and disturbing like Taxi Driver but it ultimately fails because the screenplay is so paper thin that the only thing you learn is that Chapman went to NYC to kill Lennon. Without the credits the film runs under 80-minutes and the entire time we see Chapman talking to himself and when he isn't doing this we're greeted with voice-over narration that once again tries to say something deep yet nothing is ever said. The movie doesn't try to make us feel sorry for Chapman nor does it try to make us understand him. I'm really not sure what the point of the movie was because anyone going into the film is already going to know what happens so what exactly they were going for here is beyond me. Leto was certainly brave for gaining the weight and he's certainly trying hard but his performance really gets lost in the screenplay. Leto is fine in the role and he certainly has the voice down but in the end I think he went through all of this for no good reason. Lindsay Lohan steals the film in her few scenes as a woman, named Jude, who tries to befriend Chapman but soon realizes that the guy is nuts. When the murder finally takes place there isn't any suspense, drama and by the time it happens you're pretty much ready to leave the theater. The effort is certainly here because you can tell everyone involved was really trying to do something deep but with such a weak screenplay all hope is pretty much lost.

Chapter 27 was conceived by its first-time writer/director as a way of showing the final two days of Mark David Chapman's existence before he plugged six bullets into John Lennon. Perhaps he thought going in to it that he would get a stirring and harrowing chronicle of this man's madness, but what he didn't figure on, apparently at any point in writing the script, was giving us a story or any kind of real sense of who Chapman was aside from a mumbling nut-case obsessed with Catcher in the Rye. According to reports, yes, he was attached to that Salinger book a lot, and yes he loomed around the hotel Lennon was staying at.

But Scahefer misses any real chances to make the character compelling by sidestepping what is actually interesting about him- his past, only hinted at, with his wife and his time spent teaching Vietnamese children, being raised in a strict Christian upbringing apparently- for 84 minutes of the same muddled, pretentious beat over and over again. Since when was assassination this boring? And the blame on how bad this movie is can be spread out. Some of it is truly the Schaefer's fault just on the design of the narration. Sometimes narration can be really effective (I kept thinking back to the Informant, another movie about a mentally unbalanced individual with an inner-monologue as a prime example), but here it's nothing except dull diatribes and complaining and waxing and waning on how he feels or thinks that has nothing to say about Chapman himself or anything interesting about his situation.

And some of the blame falls on Jared Leto. Packing on the pounds simply is not enough, not when the character is the same lump of a presence in the entire running time and we're left with absolutely nothing to feel for him except hate - not even so much for his impending crime but for his construction as a character- and while his voice isn't terribly annoying when acting in scenes, it's somehow unbearable in the narration. It's a colossal waste of listening space.

Some of the other actors do try, but are also left slim pickings. Lindsay Lohan doesn't do too terrible, but that's considering what little of her character, another Lennon fan hanging out at the hotel, is revealed as. There's also a question, barely answered, as to why she wants to be around this loose cannon, who never once gives the impression of stability even in casual conversation (i.e. "I hate movies" dialog). Judah Freidlander fares a little better, but he too is only on screen so long as to just play a one note character the best way he can. And yet it says a lot that an actor like Leto, who can be talented and show range as in Requiem for a Dream or Panic Room, is reduced to being upstaged by his fellow performers who seemingly have less to do than him.

The movie made me angry at how it unfolded, because there was no progression of anything. I kept thinking about how much of a better, or just more fascinating, story it could be showing how Chapman developed into this deranged and lonely persona, or even just giving us more to chew on about his life before his notorious act. It's telling a situation before a story, and one that, surprisingly, is dull and meandering and, often, laughably ill-conceived in every facet of production. I almost weeped at the end not because of a sense of loss for Lennon, or for the soul brought down forever due to his own madness as Chapman, but because I had to endure a filmmaker's lack of having anything to really say, and saying it poorly, pretentiously, and with a lack of respect for the audience.

I have to say this up front. The people who choose to ignore this movie are as complicit in the cycles of violence that it portrays as the people who met Mark David Chapman in those three days in 1980. It is not that I blame these people. We are all guilty of ostracizing and isolating the people who are not like us, the people who may frighten us, or those who disgust us. I would probably do the same (get this psycho away from me).

My strongest impression of this movie is how the people surrounding Mark David Chapman may have had a chance to avert this depraved action. Wasn't Mark David Chapman begging people to make him stop? This Jude character does make attempts to befriend the killer, and does admirably. Yet eventually she, too, must keep her distance. I do not know how much of this actually happened or is just storytelling. But the movie, if anything, seems authentic to me.

Through further research I found out that Mark David Chapman's girlfriend in Hawaii actually knew that he had gone to New York earlier that year to shoot John Lennon. He returned and said he was cured, then he goes back to New York City. On the phone she tells him that the first step is to let Jesus into his heart. Well played! How about calling the police? Ah, probably wouldn't work. The police would have ignored her.

None of this, though, changes the fact in my mind that Mark David Chapman was a cold-blooded killer. He deserves no sympathy, but that doesn't mean we can't try to understand him. If Yoko Ono is true to what she says and writes, then she has forgiven him. Shouldn't we? Yes, he took our greatest voice. But Lennon was no saint either. I hope I am clearly communicating the sense of contradiction that I am feeling here.

Onto the movie. It is pretty cut and dried. The highlight is Jared Leto. Some people say he is channeling De Niro because of the weight gain. That summary misses the boat completely. The performance is completely different than Raging Bull. De Niro's rage was outside. Leto's rage is hidden and subverted. It is an incredible lesson in restraint that Jared displays here. The understatement of it all may make it seem like he is not really acting, but he is acting his a** off. I think it a hallmark performance.

Conceptually, well it is hard for me to say right now. I have read Catcher in the Rye, but truthfully I have forgotten most of it. Today I will pull it off the bookshelf and read it again. I could see myself either seeing this movie then as a true classic or a pile of rubbish. I can't tell you which it will be. Why don't you try the same?

But do not worry that I will go out and do something after reading the book. I have many people who love me. There are people out there who are alone and afraid, though. Can't someone do something about that?

PPPP.

I have read a few of the comments already posted, and am amazed that no one has mentioned the fact that this movie if effectively telling the story of Holden Caulfield. I have heard in the past that many people have looked at turning The Catcher in The Rye into a movie, but have found it difficult as most of the book is spent inside Holden's head. Chapter 27, so named because The Catcher in The Rye has only 26 chapters, is telling the story of The Catcher in The Rye as well was the Story of Mark David Chapman who was apparently obsessed with the book. This is a dark film, and very few people will leave the cinema with a big smile on their face, but I certainly recommend seeing it, especially anyone who has read The Catcher in The Rye.

Many viewers seem to want to blame the director of this film for shooting John Lennon all over again, or emphasize that former sigh-guy Leto put on 80 pounds to inhabit the slovenly, corpulent body of Mark David Chapman and to no avail Those of us who lived through the Beatles, who admired them, were horrified by what seemed to be an inexplicable killing--and wanted explanations, as we want to understand the killing of a beloved celebrity or a president.

As depicted in this film, the twisted psyche of this killer is not revealed--as as Friday says in Dragnet, we just get the facts, which are vivid enough to give us some idea of the weird hallucinations that went on in the mind of a killer obsessed with one of the most influential men on the planet. Since you know how this story is bound to end, you only might want to watch it if you want to see an acting tour-de-force or get some notion of what kind of sickness infested the man who called himself Holden. This film is not a cheerer-upper, and doesn't offer the usual voyeuristic excitements, but it seems sincere and well-assembled and Leto deserves credit for not wanting always to be The Dreamboat Guy.