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.
Reviews
Another reviewer mentions that anyone watching this film who doesn't care about John Lennon probably won't feel much. I personally couldn't care less about Lennon's music or his politics, and I couldn't stand the Beatles, but I like docu-dramas and true-crime so I gave it a try. I remember the actual incident and I was familiar with the details so I knew there would be no real surprises. I have a vivid memory of joining the world chorus of "oh no, John Lennon was murdered!" only because he died at the same time as my grandmother and I knew I was facing a three-hour drive to her funeral with nothing but Beatles songs coming out of the car radio. That was my idea of "hell on wheels".But I found I DID feel during this movie, much more than I had felt during the aftermath of the actual killing. The shooting scene is terribly graphic and really forced me to think about what happened for God's sake, this was a guy just coming home from work, he's got a little kid waiting for him upstairs, and some nutball who wants to be notorious pulls out a gun and pumps four bullets into him right in front of his wife. Regardless of whether or not Lennon and his rather strange wife meant anything to you personally, you've got to feel revulsion and horror at what you see recreated in front of the Dakota. Chapman's "I want" mentality destroyed a young family that night. John Lennon or John Smith; doesn't matter. What a hideous act of selfishness and misplaced hatred. I hope the SOB never gets out of prison.It's unfortunate that the filmmakers pulled the viewers out of the past by including a taxi ride through Times Square, though. The billboard for "Mamma Mia" was clearly out of place and apparently there were several other modern-day touches that I missed but others have spotted.I still think the Beatles were a quartet of funny-looking, tone-deaf weirdos I was born in 1962 so I missed the Beatlemania boat completely but I DID feel something during this film.
Warning: I didn't see this film. I refuse to see this film. This is a review about the fact that this film exists.This is one of those cases where filmmakers go too far with their craft. I'm a huge John Lennon and Beatles fan, and Lennon's murder was one of the saddest things to ever happen to humanity in general, let alone the musical community. I don't want to see a film about the man that killed him. What are the producers trying to prove? That Mark David Chapman had good reasons for his actions? No! He was a psychopath obsessed with killing John Lennon who unfortunately got to do his ultimate deed. Enough said. Why do you have to make a movie about it?Were you not considering the feelings of Yoko, Julian, and Sean? Who wants to see a movie, let alone know that a film exists, about the guy who killed your husband or father? Famous or not. It would be the worst thing in the world to me. What's worse about this is that this is EXACTLY what Chapman wanted. He wanted to be famous, and this is damning evidence to prove it!I usually try to be a pragmatist and give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, but this is one subject that didn't need to and shouldn't have been explored beyond the usual historical media, such as news, documentaries, books, etc. But a dramatic feature film? It's just too much. Unfortunately, there really isn't much anybody can do now though, seeing as how the film has been out for nearly 4 years already, except just to urge film buffs and Lennon/Beatles fans to not give this film or any other film regarding Mark David Chapman any consideration, and instead consider the feelings of Lennon's relatives and pay tribute to John by simply listening to and enjoying the greatest thing he could have left behind, his music.
Some might say it's morally wrong to make a project like this. People all over the world since fall of 1980 have been trying to forget the name Mark David Chapman, with the intention of not giving in to his wish to be remembered as a nobody who killed the biggest somebody. Making movies about the incident as seen from Chapman's perspective certainly are not gonna help people forget, but personally I thought the film was fascinating. From looking at his tiny resume, I'm guessing that Actor Jonas Ball was chosen mostly because his face is indistinguishable from Chapman's, not because he has any acting skills (even if he did) The role isn't actually that demanding. There is no real need for a performance, most of the character is sold to us through his narrated monologues. The Killing of John Lennon is made mostly by its direction and writing. It takes artistic liberties while ensuring that it's story is direct and the facts are portrayed with clarity (even if a few of them are manipulated)So what are the facts? Well we know that twenty-five year old Mark Chapman, flew from Honalulu to New York in the fall of 1980, with the intention of killing Lennon. On the evening of September 8, Lennon autographed an Album cover for Chapman, who continued to linger outside Lennon's place. Two hours later, when Lennon returned from a recording session, Chapman pumped him full of lead in the presence of Yoko Ono. Chapman was arrested and was glad to plead guilty to murder.So what was going on in his head? well if you want the best possible answer read a book, but I just thought this would be interesting to check out. I wasn't disappointed. My one complaint about the film, is that it takes too long to end. Sure it is important that we see the after math of the killing, but the film throws out a bit more than necessary. Up until the last twenty minute, the film makes it pretty clear about Chapman's motives, the ending feels more like a muddled mix of thoughts , which does actually make his sound crazy, whereas up till that point, the film successfully portrayed Chapman as a human being. I suppose it is when crazy people seem normal that bring out the credibility of a story, and I think it is safe to say that the Killing of John Lennon feels credibleFor an indie film, the Killing of John Lennon is well done. It is one of those films that you need to approach with an open mind, but it works.
Though I checked the "spoiler" option just to be safe, there is no real way to offer spoilers on a film that cribs so slavishly from public documents taken from a particularly tragic episode in America's ongoing love affair with fame-obsessed wackos.This morally repugnant film would possibly (but not likely) have something going for it if it offered even a scintilla of a reason for being, but it has none. It is merely the recounting of the tragic and unnecessary murder of a public figure from the perspective of the deluded narcissist who killed him.Try to imagine someone making a film of Michael Jackson's death and the resounding question would be "why?" The same applies here. This film offers nothing that you couldn't get from a Wikipedia accounting of the crime, so what purpose does it serve? There is no "understanding" to gained from just listening to the criminally insane justify their insanity. It only makes for a VERY tedious two hours that borders on the insufferable when the ramblings of this mental midget are inflated to major motion picture proportions. This film left me feeling disgusted with the filmmakers. I've seen porn that had more dignity.