John Lennon was not perfect....and the man that killed him even less so.....This film does not glorify Chapman (I've seen it unlike most commentators) but it gives a little insight into why he ended up the way he did....draw your own conclusions.. his own words are used thoughout...its creepy and disturbing...and as an independent film it punches well l above its weight....go and see it...and then pontificate !!!

Chris, London,

The subject matter of this film is so true and raw to the life experience. Not debating if these events should be filmed and replayed in "honor " of the murderer but to pass on the truth of how this great tragedy occured is of question.....the actor in this film convinced me of the insanity that it took to kill the amazing musical legend.

Katy, NY, US/NY

yeah but why not ban |"Monster "zodiac" and every other film about a real life serial killer, maybe some victims are more important than others?

Uche george, London , UK

Apparently Mark Chapman committed this murder to achieve recognition. The making of this film gives him this reward. On that night, it's a fair bet that John Lennon and his wife were just walking into their home looking forward to saying goodnight to their son when Mark Chapman stepped forward. What he did makes me sick to the stomach. And soon it will be available on DVD. So we can all watch it over and over again. Making this into a film is totally revolting.

Mark, London, UK

I would have to agree that the release of this film is grossly disrespectful to the memory of a musical legend, particularly when one considers that the murderer (I'll not even dignify him with a name) admitted in interviews that he killed John Lennon for the notoriety.

Even filming a documentary on the killer, let alone releasing a major Hollywood film with all the furore that that entails, is, as has already been stated, nothing more than an accessory to the killing.

John Lennon was murdered by a man who wanted you to remember his name. Do us all a favour, and look the other way.

Ben Grafton, London,

Margaret Thatcher discovered that it proved difficult to starve a particular group (The IRA in her case) of the oxygen of publicity, and it is debatable who should be denied such availability to the public eye and ear. There is one example however, where it is very clear that publcitiy should be denied.

"The Killing of John Lennon", represents just such a case - achieving for the murderer his exact intention, and encouraging future murder of "Stars" by the undoubtedly small, but ever present, proportion of the population whose desire for fame takes a psychotic bent. The producers are, in my eyes, virtually accessories after the fact.

Whilst I have campaigned against this film since its conception, I also feel disgust towards all who tacitly (or otherwise) support this perverse capitalist enterprise. I deplore all media outlets advertising this film, as your supplement has done today, but I have no doubt that the carbon dioxide of money will alway drown out the breath of sanity.

patrick graham, stroud, gloucestershire

It is a highly uninsightful rendition of Chapman, which says much about its exploitative producers (they are doing a Dennis Neilson bio next) than offering any us a vision of a deranged man. Its clunky psycho porn of the worst kind about a man who loses his grip on reality. Its far more 'phoney' than revealing. I left the cinema feeling angry at the events and cheated by the film!

alan, sydney,

I'm not sure I am recoverd enough - 27 years later, to relive this tragedy. Behind 9/11/01 this is the darkest day in recent history.

I'll see it, though.

Rick Snow, Tucson, AZ