User reviews

"I was nobody, until I killed the biggest somebody on earth". The words of Mark David Chapman perfectly sums-up this Andrew Piddington biopic of the estranged murderer of John Lennon. Not only does the film track Chapman's movements in the months leading up to the fateful event, but it also follows what happened to the killer from the moment he shot the infamous Beatle, right through to his committal into a psychiatric hospital. The unknown Jonas Ball's portrayal of Chapman is splendidly subtle and disturbing and combined with the artful and experimental direction of Piddington, 'The Killing of John Lennon' makes for an aesthetically pleasing yet chilling examination into the mind of a killer who just wanted to be famous.

Re-enactment of the months leading up to the shooting of John Lennon in the life of Mark David Chapman using his own words and the actual locations.

Stunningly made and extremely well acted film is the cinematic equivalent to being dropping into the mind of a mad man. This is a often a scary portrait of a man on the edge. Through the use of words and images one can get a sense of what it may have been like inside the brain who killed John Lennon. Its a wonderful achievement that makes me want to see what director Andrew Piddington has done before and will do after (It appears he's done mostly TV documentaries). The early part of the film is very unnerving since you begin to see and understand what Chapman was thinking and going through. It is not an easy thing to identify with a killer and there are moments when Piddington makes you do that. (I know several people who don't want to see this film at all because they want to have nothing to do with the subject) As well made and well acted as the film is the film falls down in one key area, its simply too long. Running almost two hours the film simply begins to run out of steam as we watch the monotony of Chapman's life become monotony on screen. Some scenes seem to go on too long and others seem be a repeat of things we've seen before. What worse is that its an intriguing thing to think and feel like a madman its another to feel trapped in his mind and after a while the sensation becomes one similar to drowning and one wants to simply tune out and shut down. I hate to say it but I think probably a half hour could be removed to speed things up.

Well made enough to be worth a look on cable (I saw this on the pay service IFC on Demand) or as a rental where you may be ale to get through the slow bits by walking away for a while.

6.5 out of 10.

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.

Seen at the IFF Rotterdam, 1 February 2007.

Expecting little more than an arty exercise in film-making, this turned out to be an exceptional film. Despite its low-budget, this independent feature is a supremely well-made, handsomely filmed and fascinating psychological journey into Mark Chapman's twisted mindset, from his background in Hawaii till his dramatic encounter with John Lennon outside the Dakota building.

Piddington largely based the film on Chapman's detailed diary entries and makes extensive use of voice-over, turning the film into an almost dream-like experience. Shot entirely on locations in Hawaii, Georgia and New York, it's remarkable how he achieved to give the locale - New York in particular - the necessary sleazy and grim 1980 look. In one scene, we see Manhattan through the dirty windows of a taxi cab. When looking carefully, some modern cars can be spotted and some modern neon signs, not around in 1980, but the photography is such, even these small anomalies don't matter at all.

Newcomer Jonas Ball captivates completely as Mark Chapman, filled with narcissistic resentment and anger, desperately looking for a way out of Honolulu, destined to make some kind of claim to the outside world. Although we know exactly what's going to happen, his every encounter he has becomes frightening, even when we know the only person he ever harmed was Lennon. When he picks up a copy of J.D. Salinger's "A Catcher in the Rye", this becomes his everyday bible and its main protagonist, Holden Caulfield's, loathing of 'phoneys', leads Chapman to think Lennon is the biggest phoney of all.

In an interesting Q & A with the director afterwards, Piddington said he based everything on firm, hard evidence and tried to make the film as factually accurate as possible. He even challenged the audience to find factual errors in the film. Not that factual accuracy is that important to me, but he surely set out to make this with a clear factual approach, largely based on press cuttings, police files and books about Chapman.

One of the interesting things about Chapman's psychology is that he didn't have a lifelong obsession with John Lennon. He randomly picked up a book from the shelf in the local library with photos from John Lennon, but if he would have read a book about The Rolling Stones at that time, 'it would have been Mick Jagger all over the sidewalk', according to Piddington. His obsession was largely self-centered. He wanted to be famous. The murder didn't follow out of any reasoned hatred against the person of Lennon himself. Lennon was a phoney, but George C. Scott was on his list too.

Mark Chapman is also the first known case of a celebrity stalker. I'm sure there were cases of stalking before, but no-one was even convicted for stalking before this case, let alone murdering a celebrity. In a certain way, Chapman might be the first true example of a 'modern stalker', a media-driven obsessed man, longing for media fame himself. 'I was nobody', he claimed,'until I killed the biggest somebody in the world.' When incarcerated and watching the news about Reagan's assassination attempt, he exclaimed they got the idea from him. Actually, it was Jodie Foster in TAXI DRIVER that sparked that one, but Chapman's actions might have given the definitive push.

If there's any minor knit-picking, keeping this from hitting the bulls-eye completely, is would be the ending. It seemed like the last half hour consisted of one climax after another, like Piddington wasn't sure how to wrap it up. It didn't really matter to me, because the film kept me in a state of trance till the very end, but if I were the producer or a potential distributor, I would demand some reworking of the ending. But this a very minute reservation about an otherwise great film, that clearly deserves a run at bigger markets. Highly recommended.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10

"The Killing of John Lennon" takes us into the mind of a cold-blooded assassin. I speak, of course, of Mark David Chapman, the mentally disturbed 25-year-old who shot down the former Beatle in front of his apartment in the Dakota building on December 8, 1980. The movie achieves its goal by restricting itself pretty much to Chapman's actual words, which flow forth mainly in the form of voice-over narration, as he comments on his thoughts and deeds.

We're first introduced to Chapman in September of that year as a moody, darkly introspective near-loner (he was married at the time) living in Hawaii, who calls people he doesn't know with threatening messages, and becomes so obsessed with "The Catcher in the Rye" that he begins to fancy himself another Holden Caulfield, i.e., a uniquely insightful observer and commentator on people and life whom no one else seems to understand. We learn of his being raised in a loveless family by self-absorbed and disinterested parents, where emotions and physical affection were seen as inappropriate and to be avoided at all costs. We see how he first begins to focus on Lennon as the representation of all that's wrong with the world and his own life, viewing the singer/songwriter as a hypocrite and a sell-out for preaching the gospel of love-over-materialism in his music ("Imagine no possessions…") while living the lavish lifestyle of the rich and famous himself. Like Holden, Chapman came to see himself as on a mission to expose and bring down the "phonies," and Lennon was the one he alit upon.

We then follow Chapman to New York City, where he methodically closes his trap, carefully following in Holden's footsteps all along the way (for instance, Chapman stays at the Waldorf-Astoria and orders up a hooker simply because Holden does those things in the novel). Chapman comes to see himself as fulfilling Holden's quest to "kill the fat man in the hotel" - only Chapman will take that act out of the realm of fiction and fantasy and make it a reality.

Written and directed by Andrew Piddington, the movie, which has been shot largely at the actual locales, provides both a chillingly detached portrait of a man who was a self-described "nobody" until he "killed the biggest somebody on earth," and an unsensationalized account of his actions before, during and after the murder. Jonas Ball, who is on screen virtually 100% of the time in this film, effectively captures the loser-like nature of what is essentially a nondescript pipsqueak with delusions of grandeur who's determined to make himself noticed by a world that's paid little or no heed to him up to this point.

It is probably impossible for anyone to successfully get into a mind as warped and twisted as Chapman's. But the makers of "The Killing of John Lennon" do give it a valiant try.

As a film, "The Killing of John Lennon" is extremely well done. It is expertly crafted. Well directed. Well acted. Well edited. Well shot. But that is a technical appraisal. I have a difficult time respecting this film because its emotional impact relies on one and only one factor, John Lennon's murder. If you do not care about John Lennon, the film has no impact. This is why this talented filmmaker chose his subject. Had he made a nearly identical fictional film that featured the murder of someone who the audience does not literally love, he'd have a film that very few would feel the need to watch. He'd also have a film that I could respect.

Instead, he has a film that Beatles and Lennon fans will watch, even if it in spite of themselves. And if Sean Lennon or Yoko Ono said, "You're raping John's corpse," well, I don't see how the filmmaker or the company that might buy and release this film could deny that in fact their money is soaked with John's blood.

The director himself was both arrogant and evasive at the Q&A after the movie. Someone in the audience asked, "Do you think Chapman would be happy after seeing this film?" Instead of answering, the director said, "I don't think he will ever get out of prison, and if he does someone will shoot him immediately." I assume that he avoided a real answer because the real answer is, "Yes. He'd be ecstatic. The fact that there's not one but two films about him will completely affirm whatever parts of his psychotic mind still cling to his desire to be someone. I've made Chapman very happy, that is for certain, even he never sees this movie." I did want to ask why he titled the film with "Killing" and not "Murder." He seemed the sort to enjoy a discussion on semantics.

I support this director's right to do the wrong thing, and only wish he'd have either chosen to not exercise it or would have made some effort, even if it were a disclaimer at the end of the film to express an acknowledgment of the exploitation and perhaps make amends for it. I am not saying that the filmmaker has to donate some or all of his profits from this film to a charity that supports the families of murder victims, but I am saying that he should. The Lennon family certainly doesn't need the profits, if there are any, from this film. And the filmmaker should not want the profits, because it is not his skills that will draw an audience but John's name and the world's affection for him.

I give this film a 4 because technically it earns a 7 and thematically earns a 1, which averages to 4.

I saw this movie at the 2007 International Film Festival of Rotterdam. The director was present at the screening for a Q&A. I saw a finished cut, "straight from the Avid", but with at least partly a temp soundtrack.

Plot summary: This is a dramatized telling of the events surrounding the murder of John Lennon by Mark David Chapman. Chapman (Jonas Ball) is the central character here. We follow his footsteps in the months before and after the killing.

I have recently seen the documentary The US vs John Lennon (2006), It filled a gap in my knowledge about Lennon in the 70's.

This movie, "The Killing of John Lennon" is not a documentary, rather a nonfiction drama. It answers some of the questions about Lennon's death that I still had ofter seeing "The US..." The challenge with this type of story is of course: how do you keep a movie interesting when the protagonist is so obviously not a very nice character. I like how this was handled here. There is a good balance between keeping a healthy emotional distance from this criminal, while keeping things interesting. Ted Demme's"Blow" (2001), a similar type of movie about a famous drugs criminal did not have this balance,. I think, where "The Killing..." does.

Director Andrew Piddington states in the opening titles "All of Mark David Chapman's words are his own." This is important to know, I think, because we get to hear Chapman's words during most of the movie. In dialogs and in voice-over as he recalls the events. It is clear that Piddington has put a lot of research into this, though , He obviously used other sources besides Chapman's testimony.

The end result is a well-made film. Jonas Ball is almost constantly on-screen, and he gives a very believable performance.

Even though this was (as the director told later) made with a very low budget, it feels very well produced and expensive. The creation of the time period is very well done. The cinema scope photography is flawless. I also liked the score, but what I heard was at least partly a temporary soundtrack. E,g, for scenes in the car and taxicab a piece from "The Thin Red Line" (composer Hans Zimmer) was used. The director said this would not be in the final film.

The only flaw that I can see, is that after 3/4 of the movie, it started to feel a bit longish. All in all a very worthwhile watch: 8/10.

Screenplay Trivia: The movie was made without cooperation by Chapman (or Ono, for that matter. All of Chapman's testimonies are public, so that was used to get Chapman's words.

Production Trivia: The entire project took 4 years to realize. Much of that went into research and getting financing.

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.

This story traces the last three months of John Lennon's assassin Mark David Chapman, as he slips into the unreality of deciding he must kill John. I know there have been films like this before, about serial killers and assassins, but why one about Lennon? The film is authentic, using Chapman's own words, but the question is, why would you wish to go through the agony of this? If you were alive in 1980, and the Beatles in any way touched your life, you remember where you were when John was gunned down. I don't think the film's goal is to explain Chapman, just to give a sober account of him. In and of itself, I accept that. The acting also is pretty good in this film. But, its like revisiting a really horrible moment in your life on celluloid. If you loved John, you should have mixed emotions, at best, watching this. A pet peeve, almost inexcusable: When Chapman comes to New York and he is in the cab along Times Square, you don't see the Times Square of 1980, you see it as it is now. The Virgin Megastore did not exist in 1980! Times Square was a dangerous place in those days, full of prostitutes and x rated movie theaters. There is no reason why that scene happened. So, if you loved John, I'd skip it. The last thing a Beatle fan needs to hear about is Mark David Chapman.

Killing of John Lennon, The (2006)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

The first of two films looking at the murder of John Lennon in the past couple of years. This one here tells the story of Mark Chapman (Jonas Ball) starting three months before the murder and a year afterwards. This here is certainly a little better than Chapter 27 but both movies have major problems, which in the end means that neither are worthy of the subject matter. On a technical level this one here is pretty strong with its nice direction and performances but I think it's tries to do too much. The movie covers a pretty long period but it kept hitting me as a been there done that feeling. We've seen countless movies trying to get inside the head of a crazy person and this is where the movie fails. I never did feel as if we were inside Chapman's mind no matter what crazy sayings were coming out of his mouth or how many times he read from The Catcher in the Rye. This here makes the first thirty-minutes really drag as we are seeing Chapman in Hawaii as he slowly comes to realize that it's his destiny to kill the ex-Beatle. When things get to New York the movie picks up a bit but we still have to listen to Chapman talk, talk and talk. The most interesting part of the story being told happens after the 77-minute mark when Lennon is killed. Unlike other films, we get some rather graphic details of the murder with all five bullets shattering through Lennon. I'm sure some fans might find it hard to watch these moments but we also continue with what Chapman did after the murder. Everything involving what happened minutes and hours after his arrest are very well done and are quite interesting but soon we get more dragged out scenes of talk. I'm positive there's a very good movie to be told here but perhaps someone should look at the murder away from Chapman's eyes. Ball delivers a fine performance as Chapman and others in the cast fit their roles just fine. In the end there's a lot of interesting footage here and it's very well made but there's also a lot of weak stuff that really kills it.

In ways this felt closer to a dramatization then a film in the classic sense which I think was a great thing. It makes it feel as close to reality as a movie can be without being a documentary. Jonas Ball who plays Mark Chapman in this film is just amazing, I don't know exactly how close to reality he plays this character but honestly, so what, he is intense, interesting, unique and a force on screen. The film maker used transcripts from the trial and the diary of Chapman to create the dialogue in the film and that authenticates it enough for me, it opens a window into the mind of Chapman that most people would never know. I think the film did a great job, no an amazing job of making everything feel real, like cameras were catching this all as it unfolded. Even with the outcome already known to the audience the anticipation and intensity was at times at a very high level. I was glad the film did not stop earlier but instead went on past the killing into what I feel is the best moments of the film when you see the immediate transformation of Chapman and then slowly his return to insanity. This film proves that a single actors performance can truly make a film. My hats off to this director for recreating such a horrible event with what feels like such authenticity.

'The Killing of John Lennon' is a pretentious, unoriginal and pompous movie that is not even worth to be compared to other movies based on the same theme, such as 'Taxi Driver' or 'The Assassination of Richard Nixon'.

The worst part being probably the three or four uncredited quotations to Taxi Driver, it is pure and simple PLAGIARISM. If Chapman was actually inspired by Travis Bickle (the villain of Taxi Driver), then it would have been at least decent to show it in the movie. Besides, several scenes of this film are also largely inspired by Taxi Driver and Scorsese's camera-work in general

I gave 3 out of 10 because I reckon some technical skills (although it's largely overdone in my opinion, there is way too much editing in this movie).

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 credible

For 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.

Another dramatized crime-biography on the mental state of Mark David Chapman, this one financed by the UK. Jonas Ball gives a fearless portrayal of the overweight sociopath Chapman who, at just twenty-five years of age, felt so isolated from the rest of the world he began to fantasize about killing a celebrity. Gunning down someone famous--in this case, former-Beatle John Lennon--would be Chapman's ticket to immortality, turning him into a prophet, a savior. No matter what amount of style or technical grace a film culled from this material can hope to maintain, the subject matter itself is off-putting; here, despite finesse behind the camera, the results are also distasteful on occasion. In the realm of a dramatization (with actors playing Lennon and wife Yoko Ono), it is therefore quite strange and queasy to see so much footage of the real John Lennon on display...and not just pictured amongst real-life headlines, but actual newsreel footage of the musician. One assumes writer-director Andrew Piddington was hoping to show a portrait of the victim as well as of his killer, but when the filmmaker stages the murder scene--with bullets bursting through Lennon's chest in slow-motion--one has their doubts that anybody here had their priorities in the right place. The film is doggedly audacious, with authentic location footage mixed in with quasi-introspective and 'revealing' voice-overs by Ball as Chapman, which are often chilling but inherently suspect, serving no particular purpose. Complete with flashbacks, flash-forwards, flights-of-fancy, and quotes from Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye", one gets the feeling Piddington was trying to one-up "Taxi Driver" and its protagonist Travis Bickle (whom Chapman also quotes). The director certainly has done his movie-homework and knows many camera-angles and narrative tricks. Yet his picture is as soulless as Chapman, and it leaves the audience with little except the busy, intriguing intersection of an urban American city and a man lost on its outskirts. ** from ****

Did John Lennon's alleged hypocrisy ended up getting him killed? That is one of the gunning themes that are brought to the line of cinematic fire in the well-executed "The Killing of John Lennon". The film focuses on the deranged adult life of Lennon assassin Mark David Chapman and his daily fixation with the literary work "The Catcher in The Rye". It starts from his young adult days residing in Hawaii and reaches to Chapman's deadly journey to Lennon's home in Manhattan. Writer-Director Andrew Piddington does a credible job in depicting Chapman's plodding disintegration to maniacal madness. However, he was a tad of a nowhere man with his underdeveloped, sluggish script. Imagine unknown Jonas Ball stealing the show as the deranged Chapman. I am sure it was a hard day's night for Jonas evolving into that character. Ball had to have balls to do it. It is one of the best acting performances of the year by an actor with a testicular last name. Piddington wisely also incorporates the theme of the hunger for social acceptability and popularity within Chapman's deviousness, and how man could be catapulted into literary theory obsessively in low self-esteem states. I do not think many Beatles fans will be twisting and shouting jubilantly with a viewing of "The Killing of John Lennon" but they should see it more as an objective narrative than a helter skelter fable. **** Good

I can't believe I just gave 2 hours of my time to further the name of someone who was SO sick he took one of the most talented songwriters away from us. He is obviously disturbed and wanted to be famous, much in the way people today want their 15 minutes even if it is at the expense of others lives... I hope NO ONE else watches this and gives that sick man the satisfaction of prolonging his fame - which was achieved in the worst way and forever changed the music world. I will not say his name here or in discussing this film - however I will make sure everyone I know doesn't make the same lapse of judgment I did. And to the film maker - you may think you are cutting edge - or giving insight, but what you are doing is giving more power and fame to people who do not deserve it, and do should not have it. I am ashamed of myself for being sucked in by the title. You got my money but I will be damned if I do not do everything I can to keep others from being as stupid as I know I was!

I'm impressed, I'm very impressed. OK for a good part of the film I felt that we already know all this of Mark Chapman off the likes of many a documentation. I was a wee disappointed the film gets nothing or very little of his little people in his younger days. Now on a more positive note is the strong magnifying attention to detail, these two men, both the assassin and his victim had so much in common, only difference being that from the similar background Lennon walked out the front door and Chapman the back. I'm sure this film is very much felt later on whether the man ought to be forgiven or not at this point. Human psychology and the way people effect each other is one of the most impressive subjects on the planet. Madness is but the devil's diagnosis, our subject is much more delicate than that. Consider how Chapman did not murder Lennon immediately when he got his autograph for a moment there he was so happy. He(Chapman) wanted to find some value in life, A thing all around him he recognized too late. Time has come for me to read The Catcher In The Rye.