Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

kitellis-98121 I gave this film 2 stars because I was impressed by Jared Leto's commitment to his work, and the physical transformation that he underwent. But as a film it doesn't merit any more than a single star, and that only because it has the decency to eventually end.Ironically, there is a line in this film where the character played by Lindsey Lohan describes another film as being essentially a boring series of pointless scenes leading to an inevitable ending - which perfectly describes this one!Here's why I found the movie so bad:1: It is neither entertaining, nor informative, nor transformative. (In other words, I didn't enjoy it, nor did I learn anything new from it that I hadn't already learned from Wikipedia, nor did it cause me to change my thoughts, feelings, or attitudes about anything in any way whatsoever).2: The vast majority of the dialogue is presented as an internal monologue of Lennon's killer, which is mostly taken (according to Wikipedia) directly from the murderer's interview tapes from prison.In other words, the movie (which places the killer, rather than Lennon, as its central character) is essentially acting as a mouthpiece for the killer, providing a platform for his scrambled and mostly incomprehensible ramblings, and ultimately giving him far more of a voice than he deserves - either morally or creatively.It should be noted that Lennon's widow and children didn't want the film to be made, or for the murderer to receive any further publicity or notoriety. His main motive for killing Lennon was to become famous, and it was always their desire that he should not get his wish. This film makes a movie star out of a sad, uninteresting little man, and effectively rewards him for the murder in exactly the way he had hoped.3: The filmmakers, by making this film, are profiting financially from Lennon's murder. That, though disrespectful, wouldn't be so bad if they had achieved at least one of the primary objectives of cinema. (See point 1.) But they didn't. It's just an amateurish little mess of grainy handheld shots of a fat guy waiting outside a building while thinking rambling thoughts. An artist of Lennon's stature deserved, at the very least, for the unauthorised movie of his murder to be either entertaining, informative, or transformative. Preferably all three!4: It's boring. Just plain dull. Bleak and depressing too. But mainly just dull.And yet I was inspired enough to waste further time writing a review, so go figure!I should point out that most of the thoughts I have expressed here occurred to me while I was watching the film - as my mind kept wandering - so I was clearly bored and not concentrating. Perhaps my own internal monologue just overwhelmed that of the movie's protagonist, and as a result I missed something subtle and yet deeply profound and meaningful that would have made it a worthwhile movie. But I doubt it.

max-saunders this film is very hard to review. i watched it because i think Jared Leto is a very good actor and i was fascinated by the story of the murder of John Lennon as i have heard of the name Mark David Chapman so many times in my life.. overall this film has very bad reviews but i think people don't like it because the film itself has sympathy for Mark David Chapman. i think that this film was a disturbing and unnerving account of the lead up to John Lennon's death and i thought it was quite good. Jared Leto's performance for me is outstanding in this film and was one of the reasons why i kept my eye on the screen, without Leto this film wouldn't have fascinated me as much. as a piece in itself its pretty good the dialogue is OK and the directing is alright but nothing special.i would possibly see this film again but only because of Leto's performance. if you like Leto see this film. it is quite fascinating but the film is very dark and very disturbing more so than i expected. the film really makes you visualise how this man killed John Lennon and how he was just a complete psychopath. but this film doesn't answer the question why because there is no answer to why John Lennon was murdered. i would rate this film 6.5-7 out of 10. its good but nothing special.

moonspinner55 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 ****

MisterWhiplash 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.