Chapter 27 picks the worst way possible to sell a pretty tough message. A few years back, Gus Van Sant's Elephant told viewers that random acts of violence can sometimes remain random, simply emerging out of the blue and not necessarily backed by any motives. It was a fairly daring premise handled with extreme care, and Chapter 27 aims to follow in Van Sant's footsteps. But when it comes to the question of why people kill one another, there's a difference between being ambiguous and pretending to know the answer when you really don't have the slightest clue. Chapter 27 falls into the latter category. It spends more time teasing its viewers than enthralling them with the inner workings of a cold-blooded killer.

In one of the bravest physical transformations for a modern actor, Requiem for a Dream's Jared Leto packed on 60-plus pounds to play Mark David Chapman -- forever notorious as the man who killed John Lennon in December of 1980. As the film begins, however, Chapman has yet to do the dirty deed. He's  introduced to the viewer as a quiet and very possibly disturbed young man roaming the streets of New York City. With a high-pitched voice and a schlubby physique, Chapman has traveled all the way from Hawaii for the sole purpose of getting Lennon's autograph. He joins other fans, including the pretty and spirited Jude (Lindsay Lohan), waiting outside the Dakota, the grand hotel where Lennon would stay in his last days. But as time presses on, with no sign of the ex-Beatle anywhere, Chapman feels dark hands pressing him toward a tragic fate, warping his already troubled mind and goading him into taking his hero worship to a dangerous level.

Although not expecting Chapter 27 to solve the mystery behind why Chapman gunned down Lennon on that fateful night, I hoped the film would find another means of keeping me involved -- even though I already knew the story's ending. But writer/director J.P. Shaefer tripped up here in a particularly painful fashion. Considering the pretentious manner in which he presents the film's main question, "Because" is hardly a good enough answer. It's one thing to say no one knows why Chapman killed Lennon, but it's another to act like you have the solution, dangle it in front of viewers, then yank it away and laugh in their  faces. Shaefer's biggest mistake involves hinting  there's more to Chapman than meets the eye, yet at end, seeing him the way most of the world sees him: as a grade-A nutcase. Attempts at presenting Chapman's damaged psyche are nothing short of flimsy, leaving the audience in the rather uncomfortable position of following the world's biggest creep for an hour and a half.

I'm betting Chapman was never the cheery, sociable type, but if No Country for Old Men and The Silence of the Lambs proved anything, it's that killers can be  incredibly fascinating film characters. Not so with Leto, however, who makes you want to head for the hills the minute he opens his mouth. There's nothing about Leto's performance to draw you in. His constant stammering and unstable demeanor make his character uncomfortable in all the wrong ways.

Chapman has a bit of dialogue about the arrogance of those actors determined to show the masses how good they are, which describes Leto's turn to a tee. It's all show and no soul, as shameless a display of Oscar bait as I've ever seen. Surprisingly, Lohan is not bad in her brief turn as a much less frightening Lennon fan. Also, Shaefer includes a couple of artistic touches that actually work quite well (the inevitable assassination scene is chilling yet tastefully-handled).

If you're wondering what the title Chapter 27  means, it probably has something to do with how The Catcher in the Rye, the novel Chapman becomes inseparable with during the story, includes only 26 chapters. Still, like most questions Chapter 27 poses, a clear answer is never provided, adding more fuel to the raging fire of indecision that burns this potentially harrowing tale to the ground.

MY RATING: * 1/2 (out of ****)

(Released by Peach Arch Entertainment Group and rated "R" for language and some sexual content.)