The Killing of John Lennon (2007)
The film follows the travels and accounts of Mark Chapman (Jonas Ball) and gives the watcher an insight into his mind. It starts with him in Hawaii and how he does not fit in with anyone including his job; family; friends etc. He says he is searching for a purpose in his life and that it has no direction. He seeks refuge in the public library where he finds the book, 'The Catcher in the Rye'. He becomes obsessed with the book and believes that he himself is the protaganist in the book, Holden Caulfield. He believes the ideas in the book reflect his own personal life and how he does not fit in anywhere and he reads it constantly. He then finds another book in the library about The Beatles singer John Lennon and begins a personal hatred for him.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Reviews
To me, this movie is perfection.
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
I have read many Lennon biographies as well as numerous detailed accounts of Chapman's life. The books that I have read go deep into his background and they explore what conclusions can be made about his thought process and motivations.In that regard, this film presents a strikingly superficial rendering of who Chapman was and what was motivating him. While skipping realistic depth and detail, the film uses atmospheric shots, music, and creative editing to conjure an atmosphere that is in effect, an art project.Given the subject matter, I find it distasteful.The shots of Chapman walking around in a clearly 21st-century time square (the film is set in 1980) are silly. The randomly sped-up shots of him maniacally grimacing are irritating, and, honestly, a bit cheesy. I will give the film credit for it's depiction of Lennon at the end, I found him strikingly life-like.If you really want to learn about Chapman, get one of the recognized books on the subject matter and delve deep.This film is an art-school project that reveals nothing and presents a superficial, unbelievable caricature of Lennon's murderer.
On the night of December 8, 1980, John Lennon, co-founder of The Beatles, was shot to death in front of his New York City apartment. Mark David Chapman(Jonas Ball), more-or-less a loner searching for an identity to grab for his own, decides to induce grandiose attention upon himself. Ending his security guard shift in Hawaii, he flies to New York City with the full intent to killing John Lennon. It was a love-hate relationship...Chapman loved the music, but also conceived Lennon to be a phony because of all his material things. Camping outside John's apartment at The Dakota, Chapman does receive an autograph. He would linger longer descending into a madness that would allow him to put five bullets in Lennon. How true this depiction is is very debatable, but riveting just the same. Others in the cast: Mie Omori, Krisha Fairchild, Robert C. Kirk, Gunter Stern and Joe Rosario.
I watched this film on pay per view mainly because I remember that day so well. It's hard for me to say exactly why, but I don't think the film quite works. Somehow the character development didn't click for me. The film was a bit slow moving, and I didn't like the occasional surrealistic asides showing him freaking out, descending into madness.Technically, there were many flaws. They didn't try very hard to get the period right, other than obvious things like his haircut, car, and the 1980 presidential campaign. Also, I recall reading that part of Chapman's motive was that he was a rigid Christian, and he still smarted from Lennon's offending of the faith way back in the 60s. I think he had been some sort of youth counselor as well.Overall, there was too much of an amateurishness to the production for me to recommend.
I saw "The Killing of John Lennon" at the Tribeca Film Festival. I thought this movie would provide interesting insight into why Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon, but I felt like it missed the mark (no pun intended).First of all, at 2 hours, this movie is about 45 minutes too long. There are long, drawn-out dreamlike sequences that were unnecessary - it would have far more interesting to learn about his relationship to his wife and to also include information such as the imaginary people Chapman heard and took guidance from.The film fails to capture the zeitgeist of the day - there are many instances where we see modern cars and signs (such as the logo for Planet Hollywood and current Broadway shows when the cab is driving through Times Square) and a general lack of it feeling like 1980. Chapman was among the first of the celebrity stalkers, and a feeling of this relative innocence of the day is lacking. (For example, Chapman frequently asks the doorman if he's seen Lennon that day. Nowadays, the cops would be called. Back then, he was probably just seen as a rapid fan.) The film is presented mostly in monologue. I'm sure this was a decision to give the feeling that Chapman lived in his own world, but it ends up leaving the viewer feeling like they've missed something.I saw people checking their watches about an hour in the movie. I knew it was two hours long and really wanted to leave about halfway through.A documentary about Chapman would probably be an intriguing movie, but this movie is lacking in many elements.