Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Mike Kiker 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.

Roland E. Zwick "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.

Neil Welch The subject of this movie murdered John Lennon in order to promote his own importance. The existence of films like this effectively mean that he was successful. Well done, filmmakers, for validating his act.The above paragraph contains insufficient lines, so: The subject of this movie murdered John Lennon in order to promote his own importance. The existence of films like this effectively mean that he was successful. Well done, filmmakers, for validating his act.The subject of this movie murdered John Lennon in order to promote his own importance. The existence of films like this effectively mean that he was successful. Well done, filmmakers, for validating his act.

Tammy08 Take one light-hearted, happy-souled, dreamer who wanted to give peace a chance and introduce him to an angry, confused disturbed young man man fifteen years his junior. Add an obsession to the death and a .38 gun. You get 'The Killing of John Lennon', told in Mark David Chapman's own words, from when he first flies to New York 'because I want to travel' to his reading from 'The Catcher In The Rye' in a court where he stands guilty of murder. Forget the blockbuster idea. If you want to label it, it's indie, art house fayre. It took three years for the money to be raised to make it. Very few special effects, filmed on location. Lots of close ups of hands and feet and faces, along with shots shown over and over again.It is not an easy film to watch, it was as if the happenings on screen had reached out and wrapped me up so much so a day after seeing it it am still stunned and my brain is full of it. The killing itself, along with other notable scenes, of close ups of Chapman behaving in a disturbed, disturbing way, leafing through a magazine full of pictures of Lennon, flipping through 'The Catcher In The Rye', holding it to his face, sitting rocking violently on his bed, dancing around to the Beatles music while his mostly unaffected wife Gloria stands in an adjoining room with her hands flat to her ears, writing 'John Lennon' in the signing book at work, holding a heavy gun and pretending to shoot people outside the window of the Hawaii gun shop, fantasising about shooting two gay men in the next room at the YMCA in New York, his obsessive behaviour after getting his copy of 'Double Fantasy' what turned out to by John and Yoko's last album signed by John, and all to a calmly spoken track of Chapman's own thoughts.The killing of John Lennon itself; the DVD itself has a fifteen certificate because it 'contains strong violence and language'. I have watched many scenes in films that contain violence and language, but the killing was truly horrendous; so bad I found myself speaking out loud, over the roars from the gun and Lennon's body being bloodily torn apart, 'good god, that's enough now!'After being arrested, he had a bullet proof vest wrapped around him to be hustled through the waiting press; as the police captain in charge said, 'This man just killed John Lennon. There ain't gonna to be an Oswald on my watch'. A moment of peace in a toilet, and the captain asked Chapman why he did it. He answered that he liked John Lennon. Helplessly, the captain added, 'so did I'. In fact, whenever he was asked why he did it he almost literally always gives a different answer. I believe he did it for the fame, he was sick of having a wife and a job and living in one of the most beautiful places on earth,living an ordinary life; he needed to be noticed.Today, Chapman is in Attica state prison, in solitary confinement for his own safety, in a room six yards by ten yards. He has been turned down for parole four times so far. But don't pity him. He has never once expressed an apology for what he has done. He's only fifty-four now. If released, it's just possible he might get an obsession with another great person to notch up his fame level again. Chapman might be locked away, he probably would never be released, but he's alive. John would have been sixty-nine, a venerable, well respected old gentleman of rock, rich in memories, like Paul McCartney perhaps even still making music. All that wiped out because a sad, pathetic little oddball nonentity wanted to be noticed.