The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006) User Reviews

How I Miss John Lennon!

[osheaday · 8/10 · 1 October 2006]

For those who are too young to remember the real John Winston Ono Lennon -- this film is a good introduction to why he mattered so, why so many people were (and are) devoted to him as an artist and a man, why he was truly the most original voice of his generation.

The film is not perfect -- but in its defense, it covers an extraordinary amount of material and does it well.

Lennon lived 100 lifetimes between 1969 and 1975.

This film concentrates on the biggest conflict he faced at that time: his struggles to remain in the US, and the right-wing paranoia (exemplified by FBI director J Edgar Hoover and Nixon's hatchet man, John Ehrlichman.)

Lennon's sincerity, his naiveté, his charisma shine throughout.

Yoko has been attacked (so what else is new) for being such a strong presence in the film but she was right there beside him. They lived it all together. And she does not use her camera time to diminish him in any way.

Strong recommendation -- primarily because we have to remind ourselves that there are times to speak up and times to act.

John Lennon: we miss you so.

Just a Simple Summary to those of us who were already paying attention

[NJtoTX · 7/10 · 8 October 2006]

For those of us who followed Lennon and the Beatles through those tumultuous years, this was a simple summary that really didn't break any ground or uncover any new information. The filmmakers were more excited to find a few pieces of lost or mislabeled footage, such as Lennon being given his green card, than to enlighten those of us who were along for the ride all along. But it was good to hear from John again, even to say "flower power didn't work, so what? You do something else." No coverage was given John's activism or lack thereof during his infamous "lost weekend." Yoko's constant presence saw to that.

But I would love for my son and his generation to see it. Much of what is going on today has gone unchallenged, and the return of the J. Edgar Hooverization of America has been obvious to those of us who were awake back then.

A well-made and paced documentary about John Lennon and his free speech victory - important story told with Lennon's brilliant music

[Dilip · 8/10 · 19 November 2006]

"Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can. No need for greed or hunger. A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world. You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one." – John Lennon, "Imagine" "All we are saying, Is give peace a chance." –John Lennon, Give Peace a Chance I can't help hearing the song "Imagine" and feeling a little teary-eyed. I still remember being part of the worldwide vigil after John Lennon's murder and hearing the idealistic song, depicting a vision at that time suddenly sounding cruelly out-of-reach. The Beatles is one of those very few groups that seems to enjoy near-universal appreciation, from folks in their teens through those in retirement, including classical music aficionados as well as heavy metal enthusiasts. The songwriting power behind the group was primarily the genius of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, both of whom continued on to successful, creative solo careers.

With that background, how could I not jump at the opportunity to see a film about John Lennon? "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is a documentary about the life of Lennon, specifically focusing on his peace activism during the Vietnam War era. I was certainly aware of his political engagement and songs such as "Give Peace a Chance", "Power to the People", and "Happy Christmas (War Is Over)". And I vaguely recall that there were some immigration issues that this English man faced in America. But I was not fully aware of, or perhaps forgot, how strongly the Nixon administration sought to deport John Lennon simply based on his views and activism.

The film moved at a very appropriate pace, introducing enough biography to help better understand the germane issues, quickly going through John's childhood, involvement with the Beatles, and marriage to his wife Yoko Ono. Consummate musician, John is quoted as saying that all that he really wanted to do was to make music. But the escalating violence in Vietnam made him an outspoken critic of the war. A master of publicity, he even turned what he knew would be dogged press during his honeymoon to his advantage by staging a well covered love-in for peace – urging love and not war.

Richard Nixon held the office of President of the United States from 1969-1974 and is the only President to have resigned, facing impeachment for the "Watergate" scandal and clear abuse of power. In spite of election promises, Nixon plunged the country into deeper war with Vietnam amidst growing public outcry.

With the help of the heavy-handed J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for almost fifty years (from 1924 until his death in 1972), the Nixon administration sought to silence some in the anti-war movement. It tried to deport John Lennon and, finding that he had a small charge of marijuana possession filed back in England earlier, used that as a pretext to demand his departure.

Eventually, Lennon's lawyer countersued and proved that the Nixon administration has conspired against him, with people from the very top of the government involved. Lennon won and was granted permanent immigration status to allow him to stay in New York, the city he loved. Unfortunately, in 1980, John Lennon was gunned down outside of his New York apartment by a deluded fan.

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is a moving film about a person larger than reality – as if being a prolific and well-recognized songwriter weren't enough, he was a singer, guitarist, author, and political leader who embodied nonviolence and peace, influenced by Gandhi – and he was very influential in each of these areas. Many would say that Lennon was one of the key spokespersons of the generation that came of age in the 1960s, and offered a vision of a world united by zest for living together and not divided by petty differences. It is also a film about how unchecked power can try to wield unfair influence in attacking its perceived enemies.

A vivid history lesson accompanied by many brilliant songs of John Lennon's, I highly recommend "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" to all (note that it is rated PG-13 for some "strong language, violent images and drug references" but I wonder if that is a little overstated). Viewers will (re)learn important biographical and historical aspects of the man and times, and, more importantly, see John Lennon's message for its universality and timelessness. The music alone will likely rekindle or begin new memories, and the documentary is a fascinating review of an important era in recent history.

8 stars out of 10

--Dilip Barman, Durham, NC

Veers off-course sometimes, but still very good documentary

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 17 January 2007]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

During the 1960s, John Lennon was one part of The Beatles, still almost certainly the most successful British band today. But it was also the time of the Vietnam war and of the 'flower power' generation, which he got very much caught up in, much to the furore of the Nixon administration. This film follows John's escapades during this time, from his peace activist activities, his romance with conceptual artist Yoko Ono who showed him some far-out methods of drawing attention to his cause, his 'stay in bed' crusade after the failure of flower power, his support of the Black Panthers, his far out views on materialism and spirituality and, of course, the Nixon administration's paranoia about his influence on the youth of America at the time, which lead to them tapping his phone and having him followed and, eventually, attempting to get him deported on a bullsh!t possession of marijuanna charge.

Although many of Nixon's worries concerning Lennon were probably a load of hot air, it's doubtless the huge role the man played in inspiring a generation of young people to adopt the ideals of peace and love for your fellow man, which the Nixon administration, hell-bent on sending many young men off to die for a cause they didn't understand let alone believe in, was understandably rattled about. And so it's an interesting idea to make a documentary like this, highlighting the huge influence the man had and the increasingly drastic steps that were taken to try and put a dent in it. Talking heads include figures from the FBI, those caught up in the peace demonstrations, a platoon leader in Vietnam as well as Yoko Ono herself and the then leader of the Black Panthers. It all makes for a very interesting and revealing expose of events involving Lennon at the time, and it all plays out in much this way too. The one problem is that it veers off course from the source material at the time in some parts, leaving the theme of Nixon's harassment of Lennon and playing more like your typical biography of Lennon's life and, in turn, becomes a little meandering and boring, especially towards the end.

Nonetheless, it certainly doesn't fail as a documentary and still maintains an interesting and relevant theme through-out that Lennon enthusiasts and others as well will be very interested in seeing. ***

A beautiful film about a beautiful man

[alisongsla · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

I hope everyone sees this film, as it is a window into the life of an extraordinary person, who really did influence a generation with his music and his courage. But, I especially hope that the generations that came after John Lennon left us, so unexpectedly, have a chance to see this thoughtful and fitting tribute to the gentle artist who turned the hurt he experienced as a child into an international revolution with a spirit so open and willing to risk everything he had to teach the world that all we really need is love. This film explains to all of us, who were too young to understand what was going on, at the time, how John Lennon was persecuted by the U.S. government for simply expressing his opinion about the war in Viet Nam. How he was investigated, tapped, and followed, then threatened with deportation, in an effort to derail a tour that might have had a significant influence on the outcome of the 1972 presidential election, in which Richard Nixon was re-elected. The scenes of teenagers burning their Beatles records in protest of his quip that the Beatles had become more popular than Jesus, are eerily parallel with the Dixie Chicks fans who did the same thing. Excerpts from Nixon's speeches about the war are almost word-for-word the same rhetoric we get from Bush. This film is important, and moving, and includes some of the best music I know I'll ever hear in this lifetime. Go see it and get inspired.

Left-leaning perhaps but an interesting, accessible and enjoyable documentary on Lennon's life after the Beatles

[bob the moo · 4 June 2007]

I am too young to really remember John Lennon being alive and what I know of him is mostly based around the Beatles and his later solo efforts which, in my view, saw him becoming a bit of a peacenik under the influence of Yoko Ono. As a result this film sat on my recorder for quite a few weeks before I got round to watching it but I am glad I did because it is actually a very interesting film that is pitched perfectly to inform viewers such as myself who perhaps did not know anything about John Lennon in the latter stages of his life.

It goes without saying that the film is sympathetic to Lennon and what he was trying to do and I suppose this is a fault within the telling that the bias towards him as a person is inherently there. This will put off some viewers who simply disagree with him, draw in those that agree but to the casual viewer I doubt it will come over as a problem and indeed for me it was just something I observed rather than something that was an issue. Anyway, what the film did well for me was to acknowledge that Lennon was an artist and a peacenik but to move him beyond the images and songs that we all know. This gives him as a person more of a foundation and meaning because, viewed in context of his time he actually comes over as a key figure and an intelligent man (albeit an artist!).

I'm sure some will see this as a problem because they disagree with it but the approach works. Setting the foundation and showing Lennon speaking out (in his own way) builds well to make the later persecution by Nixon's Whitehouse to be a natural progression and believable rather than being a rather sensationalist newspaper headline (or indeed like the title of the film itself). The use of archive footage is really well done as it makes rightly makes Lennon the main character while the contributions are mostly relevant and edited into the main flow well.

An interesting and engaging documentary that sits as a fitting tribute to who John Lennon was, even if it focuses on a specific period in his life. Understandably slanted to the left politically, it will appeal to the casual viewer quite easily.

Working Class Hero

[dunmore_ego · 6/10 · 28 August 2007]

David Leaf's and John Scheinfeld's *The U.S. vs. John Lennon* is an insular little diversion, showcasing Lennon's post-Beatles period when his activist voice made the United States government tremble in its widdle booties.

Taking a stand against the Viet Nam War (back in the day when "peacenik" was not a four-letter word), allying with activists Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Black Panther Bobby Seale, Lennon's "radical" political leanings eventually got him noticed by J. Edgar Hoover's Gestapo (erroneously called the FBI).

In their quest to silence any who disagree with them, the fascist Nixon administration dogged Lennon until Strom Thurmond (then only 179 years old and looking not a day over Nosferatu) figured a way to silence Lennon without resorting to government-sanctioned murder (unlike their usual way of dealing with dissenters) – deport him back to merry old Liverpool.

The Immigration bureaucracy then smeared all over John and wife Yoko, who battled until they actually won in October 1975.

Someone comments that it's hard to believe this pop star could have stirred up the government in such a manner; the fact that the FBI involved itself at all in surveilling Lennon illustrates the petulance, paranoia and panicky ignorance of what is supposedly the greatest superpower on Earth.

Released in 2006, *The U.S. vs. John Lennon* has all the potential to be another stab through the heart of an administration struggling for credibility (the Bush fiasco), but never quite extricates itself from its own subject matter, ultimately about an activist who is dead (Lennon) and his dissent over a conflict that is over (Viet Nam), so misses the mark on compelling.

My greatest quibble with the film is that it never strays from Lennon twisting the government's panties; it misses the opportunity to analogize the events of the early 70s with the repeated history of the early 2000s. The closest it comes to crossing historical boundaries is when Gore Vidal comments, "He was everything they hated. He represented Life, which was admirable, and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush represent death - and that is a bad thing."

The overarching message Lennon promoted was simply PEACE. Why does or should ANYONE oppose him at all? The few opposing press opinionators and government lackeys who dogged him were not concerned with legitimate issues (execution of the message or advising him on protocol), they debated Lennon on the message itself. What is the *matter* with these people? (Well, we know what the matter is – the perpetuation of conflict for ulterior agenda - but that would take us more off topic than a Yoko Ono song.)

The movie loses street cred by calling Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin "Radical Activists" as opposed to other protesting voices who are termed simply "Activists." Isn't that The Man's point of view? What makes an activist "radical" anyway? Telling the Truth? Through a megaphone?! Speaking of peace in a time of war? – that's radical!

Dictionary definition of radical is: "Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions" – but this movie uses "radical" to describe an affront to the government's criminal war policy. And there is no consistency. Paul Krassner is tagged a "radical journalist" (for hanging with Rubin and Hoffman and writing subversive newsletters, I guess), while Carl Bernstein (labeled merely a "journalist," of *All The President's Men* fame) helped bring down Nixon's Satanic White House! You tell me: what's more of a "fundamental, revolutionary change"?

Meanwhile an ex-con and felon who planned the Watergate break-in - G. Gordon Liddy - instead of being labeled with either his prisoner number, his bitch name in jail, or even "criminal mastermind" is titled "Former Nixon Administration Official."

If they can't get their labeling right, how do we take this movie seriously at all?

From interviews with Ron Kovic (author, *Born on the Fourth of July*), to Geraldo Rivera (radical mustachio), Mario Cuomo (ex-Governor of New York) to legendary author Noam Chomsky and former presidential candidate George McGovern (to name but a few), the film tries to cover all angles, but neglects to impart major reasons for world events - we get no explanation of why the Viet Nam war is even happening; Nixon is suddenly ousted from the White House with no Watergate; Mark David Chapman (Lennon's killer) is not even mentioned by name. Lennon songs are strewn non-chronologically throughout the movie, mirroring the almost arbitrary, stream-of-consciousness events, like the bed-ins, the bag-ins and those oh-so-radical megaphone rallies - though it truly is stirring to hear *Power to the People* and *Give Peace a Chance* in the contexts for which they were written.

Under *Imagine* the film hits another low point in cliché, giving us still-frame flashpoints in Viet Nam (the bloated dead in graves, the child soldier, the gun to the head of a prisoner – you know the manipulative mantra).

Ironically, the North American Union (that underhanded pigdog Free Trade treaty between the Head Eggs of the three countries of Mexico, the United States and Canada) seems to be congruent with John's vision: "Imagine there's no countries / It isn't hard to do / Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too" – but the brotherhood of man "sharing all the world" Lennon envisioned did not include *enslaving* the population through a police state and radio frequency ID cards – which is what the Three Amigos are cultivating with their illegal disintegration of the borders.

After all, the last lines of that verse are "Imagine all the people / Living life in peace..."

Now THAT would be radical.

A John Lennon Retrospective -- He Gave Peace a Chance

[klofkorn-1 · 9/10 · 15 October 2006]

One of the younger reviewers commented:

"I couldn't help but compare the era and social climate around this movie to what we are experiencing today. I am disturbed and disappointed. Why is it that it seemed as if there were loads more people being active in what they believed back in those days. I understand that it was a different time, and many in the world were just learning to use their voices... Perhaps we feel that we just don't know enough about a subject to get behind it and speak out? ... Perhaps large protests are just being overlooked because we as viewers or the media is over it... I am just wondering why I haven't done more. Why does it seem as if people today (not just my "generation" or my "community") are fearful or apathetic towards fighting for what they think is right? I don't want to preach or be dramatic here - I'm not telling you to view things my/their/our/its/his/her way. I'm just saying, I can't imagine that we've gone through life without seeing some sort of injustice - there has to be something you've seen that you think is wrong... why not say something about it? Is being charitable enough anymore? Awareness is key. Why is there this silence amongst us?"

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I've often thought as a survivor of the Viet-Nam era, that the main reason we haven't seen protests of the magnitude depicted in The US vs John Lennon in recent times is simply the absence of the draft. Plenty of people again object to the war situation, but without the threat of involuntary servitude there simply is no critical mass. The fear of self, friends, and family being rounded up and shot proved great motivation to get people out in the streets back then. The censorship of the media imposed since Viet-Nam (embedded journalists, qv) has also helped still the voices.

So at the very least, this film has helped present an historical perspective all but absent in the present day. Viet-Nam so divided the country that the divisions remain today. Yet that war is curiously neglected in our educational curricula.

Beyond that is revealed a portrait of John Lennon, artist and young man. Lennon, the single one of the Four who strove at great personal cost to better the world with far more than silly love songs is revealed here in a montage of film and stills that conveys far more than the press of the time was able or wiling to.

The film opens with footage from his 1971 appearance at the John Sinclair Freedom Rally at Crisler Area in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a former UM Ann Arbor Student I particularly appreciate how the producers of the film illustrate the pivotal nature of that event. At the time the event seemed like a big deal locally, but one that was lost amongst the din of social commotion. As close as I was geographically, I didn't realize then just how influential Lennon's (or Sinclair's) involvement was in the successful movement to end the war.

I suggest that any student (young or older) of how that peace movement progressed back then should see this film. Serious students should see it more than once. In addition to the collection of seldom seen film footage, there is a very fine sound track. See the film on the big screen if you can. I'll put my order in for the DVD as soon as it can be had, but the big screen, hi-fi version rocks.

From flower power protester to revolutionary rebel...

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 26 July 2010]

John Lennon, singer, songwriter, and controversial member of the Beatles, began to see the world differently in 1966 with the advent of those horrendous early years of the Vietnam war. Upon meeting (and eventually marrying) avant-garde Japanese artist Yoko Ono, Lennon grew out his hair and beard and began staging intimate peace rallies accentuated by new songs of hope. But his show-bizzy activism didn't become a thorn in U.S. President Richard Nixon's side until a 1971 musical protest rally to free incarcerated marijuana smoker John Sinclair resulted in Sinclair's sudden release (just hours after a review board had denied the request). Lennon's ability to rally the young people of America--and his not-shy vocal stance against the war (and, by proxy, Nixon himself)--struck fear into the White House, particularly with Nixon about to campaign for his second term. The rock star was put under not-so-subtle surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover and the F.B.I., with men in suits on Lennon's tail, his phones tapped, plus a years-old British conviction for drug possession exaggerated for use in hopefully getting John and Yoko out of the country forever. Chronicling a nearly-forgotten chapter in music and political history, this fast-moving, clip-heavy documentary financed by Lionsgate, VH1, and Paramount is wonderfully entertaining, darkly amusing, moving, and yet finally depressing. With help from a savvy Immigration lawyer, John and Yoko were eventually allowed permanent residence in the States--a celebratory event which, in turn, lead to Lennon's assassination in 1980. The intricacies of fate, justice and injustice, good fortune and bad breaks are revealed here to a devastating effect. *** from ****

Beatles Anthology Continued. Very Kind To Yoko.

[swagner2001 · 8/10 · 8 September 2006]

The court case of The United States vs. John Lennon was an attempt by the United States to deport an undesirable immigrant who at one time plead guilty to the possession of marijuana. That's the underlining narrative of this film: How John Lennon won his Green Card. (In reality - Nixon was paranoid that peace-loving Lennon could sway the youth vote in the 1972 election - hence the U.S. government tried to kick him out of the country.)

Filmmakers Leaf and Scheinfeld said they tried selling this idea as a film for years - starting in the 1990's. It wasn't until 2004 (that is, post 9/11, post invasion of Iraq) that a studio green-lit this project. The documentary is crafted intentionally to draw parallels between Vietnam and our current situation in Iraq. However, they never come right out and say it (except once - Gore Vidal slips Bush's name in - during an interview he made for this film.)

The 'U.S. vs JOHN LENNON' transports us back to the era of the Vietnam War, using tons of rarely-seen footage. Thanks to Yoko Ono, Leaf and Scheinfeld had unlimited access to the Lennon archives. Master tapes of his songs were used (sometimes with the vocals removed) allowing Lennon to create the entire music soundtrack. We even hear home recordings of John speaking to his baby Sean (who we hear coo-ing into the microphone).

The Black Panthers, activist Abbie Hoffman, Angela Davis... many of the movers and shakers of the peace movement are covered in this film. Also included is a tapestry of Walter Cronkite news bulletins, Nixon speeches, and war footage.

G. Gordon Liddy's interview represents the corrupt viewpoint of the Nixon administration: "I saw all these peace marchers carrying candles. I grabbed one of the guys' hands - used his candle to light my cigar, and said 'Well, at least you're good for something.'"

Yoko Ono comes across as a very nice person in this film (not her normal demonized stereotype character.) After watching this movie, I now have a profound respect, not only for post-Beatle John Lennon, but, for Yoko Ono as well. This movie will undoubtedly revise a lot of people's opinion about her.

Unfortunately, there's the obligatory assassination mention at the end. Leaf and Scheinfeld handle it nicely, and deal with it in under five minutes, but it really seems tacked on. Yes, we all know Lennon was shot, but only a conspiracy theorist would believe it was related to his peacenik activities (which, THANKFULLY, the film does not suggest.)

not bad at all

[paintingwithlightst · 7/10 · 12 April 2007]

Lennon was always ready to grab the next wave. His and Yoko's publicity stunts for "peace" were condescendingly dismissed as silly, naive and even trivializing, but Lennon was dead serious about promoting the idea of peace: "We're selling it like soap, you know?" And in 1969, there was indeed something liberating and comforting in seeing those billboards (and, in 1971, hearing that song): "WAR IS OVER! (If you want it.) Happy Christmas from John and Yoko." "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" touches on all of this, and a dose of idealism may be helpful at this deeply cynical moment in American history. (One can't help wondering what a 66-year-old Lennon would have made of Geraldo Rivera, interviewed here, as a Fox News correspondent.) When journalist Carl Bernstein speaks of politically motivated surveillance campaigns and refers to the Nixon administration as "a rogue presidency, a criminal presidency," you know the parallels the filmmakers intend you to draw.

Gore Vidal puts it bluntly. Lennon sang about love and peace and "represented life, and that is admirable," he says. "And Mr. Nixon, and Mr. Bush, represent death. And that is a bad thing."

A film Lennon could only have imagined

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 30 November 2006]

Imagine, for a moment, you could do anything. What would you do? Already at the height of his career, the sheer scale of possibilities before John Lennon amazed even this high-aspiring rebel. Triggered in no small part by his meeting with Yoko Ono, a conceptual artist obsessed with breaking down barriers, Lennon had to decide if there was a greater purpose to which he could devote his musical talent, fame and fortune. Mass protests against the Vietnam War were sweeping America. Lennon's aspiration became quite simple (some would say simplistic): let's give peace a chance. The U.S. vs. John Lennon uses previously unreleased archive footage, plus documentation obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, to chart this ex-Beatle's political activism and his struggle with the U.S. authorities in the late 60's and early 1970's.

It's a remarkable tour de force. Many people know Lennon as an ex-Beatle, for his song Imagine and the fact that he got shot. The extent of his political activism, the method in his apparent madness, would seem more like another conspiracy theory in less capable hands. Lennon's efforts seem directly linked (initially) to getting another activist out of jail and then making sure the war-bent presidency, White House and FBI lose lots of sleep over the war.

Directors Leaf and Scheinfeld are past masters at making serious pop culture retrospectives. In an age of technology and spin, how do we know 'documentary' filmmakers are telling us facts? Firstly, what's on the film. There are interviews with high-ranking former government and FBI agents. Then there are declassified documents, not just quoted but shown on the screen. Finally there is the official website which provides an external way of checking transparency and sources once you get home. If you thought Lennon was a cool guy - or maybe even your childhood hero - this film shows how incredibly cool - and courageous - he actually was.

Says director Scheinfeld: "We live in a time where everything's a reality show. John and Yoko were essentially pioneers in that, but they weren't using it to promote an album. They weren't using it to promote a movie. They weren't doing it to promote anything except peace and that's what makes them heroic artists here. And then to have the courage to stand up to the power of the United States - the presidency, the White House, the FBI and the INS . . ." Lennon's song 'Give Peace a Chance' became the national anthem of the anti-war movement. He linked up with other activists (including the Black Panther movement) using his public persona - and often his own money - to synchronise the peaceful protests and give them such force that, at the point where Nixon was campaigning for re-election, Lennon had been singled out for deportation. He backed down over personal appearances at an anti-Nixon concert tour (which would follow the latter's campaign trail) as government officials stepped up the campaign of harassment against him with wiretapping and surveillance. Rightly or wrongly, Lennon feared for his life. This was a time when the Secret Services had the authority to take people out if deemed in the national interest.

The website documentation shows how the Reagan administration continued to obstruct release of information on Lennon even in April 1981. The FBI cited its authority under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold "information which is currently and properly classified . . . in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy." The downside of the film is that many people simply won't care. Gore Vidal takes a modern sideswipe at Bush and Iraq, but the comparison is weak. Vietnam was not preceded by a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbour and the united opposition to the Vietnam War was on an unprecedented level: protests turned into riots, several civilians were shot, and the powers of the government were far reaching even by today's standards. Although the film sometimes plays like a top-notch TV documentary, the levels of professionalism shown by the filmmakers set it apart. It's also an unsung paean to the most important part of Lennon's life and what he would no doubt like to be remembered for. He might not have been Gandhi, but there was more to him than the wacky, druggy rockstar most of us remember.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one," wrote Lennon.

It reminded me of another famous saying: "All men dream: but not equally . . . the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." The U.S. vs. John Lennon is more than a testament to John Lennon. It is the story of how one man tried to make his dreams reality.

Fitting, heartfelt, engaging tribute to the legend exposes little known political undercurrents at the time but not much else

[oneloveall · 7/10 · 8 February 2007]

Television experts and partners David Leaf and John Scheinfeld offer this heartfelt ode of a feature documentary to one of pop cultures most esteemed icons, and the specific threats and paranoia Lennon had to deal with during his rough backlash from the Nixon administration. Moving to New York during which a solo career would continue, Lennon sought to live out the rest of his days in the country he felt his heart belonged to most, only to find constant disapproval and prejudice in the face of his ongoing and ever increasing anti-war efforts.

The film is an excellent showcase of Lennon in his prime; post Beatles, free thinking, and truth pursuing, but does not necessarily shed any new light fans would not be aware of. In detailing the chronology of his uphill battle to stay in the US and fight peacefully for what he believed, viewers are more reaffirmed of Lennon's unique and shining voice then exposed to any other facet of his personality.

This gentle love letter to the man is punctuated by tons of wistful footage coupled with much of the sweet, introspective music he was writing at the time. Also serves to scorch the underbelly of foulness on our administration back then in their gestapo-like ways to suppress anything they deemed anti-nationalist, a hypocrisy in freedom of speech few underscored as powerfully as Lennon. A must see for any fans of this beautiful man, but amongst the illuminating details and charismatic interviews lies a predictability and a familiar warmth that any Lennon fan should instantly recognize.

Disappointing

[Apple Scruff · 4/10 · 24 June 2007]

There is a lot that I love about John Lennon, and a lot that I don't like much about him. I was interested in this film initially, but was not all that impressed. I'll try to explain my problems with it. I suppose I should start by saying that it is not all bad, but anybody who looks at this as "the" documentary on Lennon is grossly misinformed.

In a nutshell, nearly everything in the film had all been said before. It was the first time I felt like I was watching a remake of a documentary! Some people claimed that it was the first time this part of Lennon's life was shown in a documentary, but there was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been said elsewhere, be it on film or in a book.

I hated the overused "talking-heads" format. I had no need to hear what Gore Vidal had to say, particularly when he went on about Lennon representing "life" and Nixon and George Bush representing "death". Whatever. I'm not their biggest fan either, but that was pure sensationalism. It's not clear which Bush he was talking about, but Vidal takes every chance he gets to make pompous, oversimplified statements like that.

Geraldo Rivera? You've got to be kidding!

I just wasn't always sure if the film had anything more to say than "John Lennon ruled and Richard Nixon sucked." Does anybody who is going to see this film really need to be told that to the degree that this film tells the audience? While I'm at it, I hated the film's ad campaign. It centered upon the above Vidal quote and counted on people who didn't do their own thinking to applaud it as wholly original and profound. The fact that it bastardized "War Is Over... If You Want It" by making it the film's tagline irritated me, especially since the film wasn't supposed to be about war! Even if you read into it and say that it was about a war between Nixon and Lennon, I still say that's a flimsy reason.

David Leaf is usually much more impressive than this. I, for one, value his work as Brian Wilson's biographer. This film, however, just seemed to be capitalizing on the current documentary craze. It used to be that a viewer could be enlightened and educated by almost every documentary that made its way into cinemas. Not anymore, though. This one simply staples together other, BETTER documentaries about the same stuff. Want to learn about Lennon? Read a book. Watch better Lennon documentaries like Imagine: John Lennon. That film wasn't perfect either, but at least it showed John at his best and at his worst. The U.S. vs. John Lennon is simply John worship that spends so much time treating him like a legend, it forgets to treat him like a man.

I probably would not have felt so negatively had I seen this one on television instead of in a cinema. It was partly produced by VH1, and that's really where it belongs. At least on VH1, it can be taken with a grain of salt alongside I Love the 80s: 1982 and Flava of Love. (Okay, okay, that last part was pretty low, I admit it. I apologize.) I can't say that I hated the whole thing. There were some pretty interesting interviews, particularly the one with John Sinclair. His contribution was the best part of the film. They also made at least some efforts (i.e. two or three I think) to bring in opposing viewpoints so they could say they were being objective.

Above everything else, it is always a pleasure to listen to Lennon, even when he wasn't thinking much about what he said. Yes, friends, even Lennons make mistakes. Either way, his interviews were pretty well used in this film. I walked away really wishing that John were still around to state his case for himself retrospectively.

"Anybody who sings about love and harmony and life is dangerous to somebody who is singing about death and killing and subduing"

[RainDogJr · 24 June 2008]

A concert made in order to ask the freedom of John Sinclair. Lennon was there and here begins The U.S. vs. John Lennon, a very entertaining and interesting documentary that first take us to what we already knew about Lennon to end focusing in his deportation problem. The reason of that problem is clear and obvious; the powerful footage is here and the picture features interviews with persons from that side and from the other side (close friends, historians, journalists, veterans, activists, senators, FBI ex-agents, Yoko Ono, etc) and that is quite interesting to hear persons that used to think quite different about Lennon but now those persons, in a neutral side, are glad that Lennon could won, partially. That interesting footage shows Lennon as we remember him and his music was, is and will be very powerful. The "Give Peace a Chance" part is amazing

-John Lennon: If I'm going to get on the front page, I might as well get on the front page with the word peace.

–Gloria Emerson: but you've made yourself ridiculous! –JL: to some people. I don't care if it saves lives.

–GE: you don't think you, oh my dear boy you're living in a never-never land you don't think you've saved a single life?

–JL: what were they singing in the moratorium? Give Peace a Chance And I'm glad they sang it AND WHEN I GET THERE I'LL SING IT WITH THEM

The "Mother" part, near the beginning, too and also I found perfect "Here We Go Again" during the part of the reelection of Nixon. "Instant Karma" (one of my personal favourites songs of Lennon) is at the credits of this documentary and made me stay watching and listening until the very end.

Conclusion: The U.S. vs. John Lennon is a recommendable picture. Lennon was an admirable person and here his believes and his music are very well presented and the footage is great yet known since we already know who was Lennon and the main subject is interesting but obvious since, knowing who was Lennon, is easy to think the real reasons of why they wanted him outside the U.S. Anyway, I liked it a lot and I hope you can check it out.

John Lennon (1940-1980)

Imagine a movie about John, but more about Yoko

[causeiwantto2001 · 7/10 · 11 February 2007]

It's a good movie, and has great truth to it, but what we are shown is what Yoko wanted us to see. Her slave Elliot Mintz says whatever she tells him too. To portray John as a child unwanted, and incorrigible, is to enable a behavior, that hurt his relationship, with his son. Please don't get me wrong, what John did to promote peace was fresh, and honest. However we must take what's said in this film, and watch it, knowing the effect the widow with the copyrights, and ability to give access to needed information, had on it. The measure of a person isn't in shaping the ideas of a nation, but the home life they had. John is worthy of praise, and didn't deserve the bullying tactics of the ultra conservative crooks, in Washington. But Julian was to forever see a man save the planet, but did not have time to save a father son relationship. With that little rant over, it is a movie that offers new insight, but I am afraid, it's Yoko edited insight. Where's May Pang? Where's Cynthia, or Julian? A documentary is made to pose a question, and if the question isn't asked of all the players, what you get is a close minded statement.

Another Reframe: State versus individuality Liberties

[Jamester · 8/10 · 10 September 2006]

I saw this movie at the Toronto International Film Festival without expecting much. I'm non- American, wasn't really old enough to live and understand what went on during the whole Beatles/John Lennon era, hadn't studied much American history growing up, and only heard some of his music and heard of his assassination, but couldn't fathom the linkage between the USA and John Lennon.

My cynicism made me think this would be a solicitous film, working off the past fame and hysteria surrounding the Beatles and this musical man. It was quite the opposite. It was intellectual, at times emotional and very engaging. A very clever and tight story around John Lennon and his interaction and perception with the US government clearly showed a David vs. Goliath stand-off. With my sympathies undoubtedly going to Lennon and wife Yoko Ono.

I mean, what could the US government find so offensive about a man delivering a peace message 'Imagine all the people -- living life in peace' to the Americans from the UK? Well -- when the man moves to New York and starts becoming friends with pro-peace Americans, like Abby Hoffman, then you see just why a pro-war government under Richard Nixon would be utterly worried about the rising influence of peace-maker John Lennon.

As a result of this movie, my respect for Yoko has increased, in fact she was present at the screening to a much adoring crowd garnering a standing ovation. Michael Moore's attendance at the screening and his support for the movie also let the movie resonate against the present.

While I hardly consider myself political, this movie raises the stakes in becoming involved and shows what one man could do against what he thought was wrong. And the music of John Lennon has taken on all new meaning.

I'm going to listen to some of his music now.

Not Bad -- Often Revealing In Spite Of Itself

[Dan1863Sickles · 7/10 · 3 February 2011]

The thing that makes this movie work is not the testimony of the "designated spokesmen" who claim to carry on John Lennon's hard-core leftist "legacy." By and large these people are either hard core scam artists (i.e. Black Panthers with LOOONG criminal records pretending to "dig" nonviolence)or pathetic victims desperately clinging to lost illusions (i.e. poor crippled Ron Kovic still blaming the US government for the deadly aim of the determined NVA soldier who crippled him for life.)

Where the movie works is when it catches John Lennon being himself -- jumping for joy while out for a walk with Yoko, or arguing with a very posh lady journalist from the NEW YORK TIMES who basically tells him a working class lad has "no business having opinions about what educated people do." (Hard to believe the feminist movement was once run by such a selfish, spoiled white-bread elite -- no, actually it still is!)

Ironically, of all the talking heads there's only one who really seems to "get" John Lennon's attitude -- and it's actually the sole right wing guy they deigned to interview, G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy's got the Lennon attitude down perfect -- tell the truth and to hell with anyone who can't deal with it. His take on the shootings at Kent State is hands-down the most honest moment in the video, so raw and irreverent you can actually hear John Lennon howling with delight.

It's a shame Lennon and Liddy never got to party together.

Austin Movie Show Review (inspiring!!!)

[leilapostgrad · 9/10 · 21 October 2006]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is anything, it's an examination of the similarities between the Nixon Administration and the national debacle that was the Vietnam War, compared to the current Bush Administration and the national debacle that is the Iraq War. The difference, of course, is that Nixon had John and Yoko Lennon to contend with. Who do we have to lead our protests and write our anthems? Michael Moore? Not good enough.

When Lennon moved to New York City in 1970, the Nixon Administration was terrified that he had the power to organize the anti-war protesters and affect the outcome of elections (particularly Nixon's 1972 run for re-election). Lennon was wiretapped and followed by the FBI (which was being used at that time to "quell decent"). The Immigration and Naturalization Service tried for five years to deport him, but he got a lawyer and fought back, and in 1976, on his birthday, on his son Sean's birthday, he learned that he and Yoko had won their case, and they could stay.

"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" makes you want to take a stand, organize a protest, demand peace, and stick it to the man!

All he was saying is give peace a chance.

[come2whereimfrom · 7/10 · 16 January 2007]

In a time when documentary film-making is as valid as any other comes one about the genius Lennon and his struggle against the American government. Yes fans will love it but so too will others as this film has as much to say about the political climate in America around the Nixon presidency as does about John and his music and beliefs. One of the things that I particularly enjoyed was how the film put a lot of things into context for me, I could see how and why the famous bed in happened, lyrics started to stand out in songs and start to have more relevance than they did before and I now know why the FBI were following Lennon and saw him as such a threat. Of course I could hold my own in conversations 'well he was so outspoken wasn't he' but through interviews and old footage this film really pieces together what Lennon had actually let himself in for at a time when America was split in two by the Vietnam war. John of course was beside himself that a singer from Liverpool could pose such a threat to one of the most powerful country's on the planet and until the FBI started to use heavier tactics carried on spreading his word of peace and 'war is over if you want it'. Heady with New York and meeting new people John and his way of thinking ended up mixing with what the government would describe as the wrong crowd and it wasn't long before he was being followed, phone tapped and eventually nominated for deportation. Lennon of course stood his ground and fought the case. This film not only showcases Lennon's talent, vision and power it is also testament to the message he was giving to the world 'all we are saying is give peace a chance'. The fact that this film exists means that his message is still going for future generations what he did in his life is being echoed in eternity and I think John would have liked that.

Fascinating and Enlightening Documentary

[fx_gent · 9/10 · 30 September 2006]

I was in high school in 1980 when John Lennon was assassinated and all I really knew about him was that he was a musician and a member of the Beatles. I found this documentary fascinating, which gave an excellent insight into Lennon's participation in and effect on the anti-war movement in the US during the Vietnam War. I came away with a greater respect of the man and what he tried to do along with with his wife and the pressures they faced from the US government who wanted to silence them. Although some parts were something of a rehash about the anti-war movement in general, the skillful editing along with use of numerous interviews and recorded material still made it enjoyable and informative. One can not help but draw a comparison between this film and message and the on-going debate over the Iraq war, which I suspect was one of the goals of those who made it. I saw this film at a suburban Washington DC theater this weekend, and when one of the interviewees said "John Lennon represented light, and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush represented death" at least half the audience clapped. I guess it made its point to this audience. If you get a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.

Not great, but probably as good as it could've been

[BradLacey · 7/10 · 2 July 2007]

Criticism of this film has focused on its refusal to be as political or revolutionary as Lennon himself - I don't think it's such a bad thing. Of course, not all films turn into Michael Moore-style propaganda pieces the minute they endorse a political viewpoint, but there are certain inevitable compromises that must be made (just as we see in Lennon's life, in fact - though here Lennon states that he considers himself an artist first and a politician second, the mere fact that it was necessary to make the distinction points to tension).

In the end, The U.S. vs. John Lennon does what it needs to do. It sets out to tell the story of Lennon's post-Beatles activist life, and does it well enough. Yoko Ono's presence in the film could (and should) have been examined more critically, but this is a cursory complaint.

Sharp, seamless editing of the mainly archival footage - interspersed with contemporary footage of interviews with some of Lennon's friends, acquaintances and (not enough) enemies helps propel the not particularly complicated narrative forward, but it's not dull.

It's a pretty simple formula here: if you like Lennon or The Beatles, you'll probably like this. But you won't write home about it.

Required Viewing for all Entertainers!

[colbydog · 9/10 · 9 October 2006]

What a coincidence that on this, Lennon's birthday Oct 9, this movie seeks to rebirth the peace movement he helped to thrust into the public conscience. While the mainstream media continually played John Lennon as a sidelined superstar- a once great entertainer turned hippie wacko, the real John Lennon became enlightened to the truth. He began speaking truth to power and aligned himself with the leading voices of reform and radical change to the corruption of day. He realized his iconic star-power could be the greatest venue to create social change without complete anarchy... and so did the Nixon administration (including the young Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfelt) only they didn't want a change. Just like today only they've become much more insidious.

We need more Lennon-like leaders from the entertainment business. Speak truth to power... its not all about the brass ring and the benjamins. If everyone stands up they can't character assassinate us all! Thank you John and Yoko!

Lennon the peacenik vs Nixon the warmonger paranoid; a bout that's given good, not great, treatment here

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 25 November 2007]

The central premise of The US vs John Lennon (the latter as described in the Departed, of all movies, semi-sarcastically as "the president before Lincoln") is that public figures are always up for grabs if they come out on either side of the fence. Lennon was fervently anti-war- if very unsure about going all the way into the dangerous political zone (hence not going, wisely enough, to the violent demonstration that happened at the 1972 Republican convention)- and because of his connection with various people like Jerry Rubin and Abby Hoffmann, as well as questionable ties with the Black Panthers, he was monitored openly, and threatened with deportation for a bogus pot arrest in 1968. Nixon, meanwhile, was one of the all-time nut-job presidents when it came to the military, who ran in 68 on an "I'll-end-the-war-honorably" ticket and instead kept the war going for years, including invading Cambodia.

Many of the facts brought up in this documentary aren't new, especially to those who were alive during the time it happened and the media went all over Lennon (so it goes in today's tabloids as well, only here it was some kind of real news). But they are presented compelling enough so that they can offer up some bits of insights for newer audiences to Lennon's music and politics. To be sure, it is a slanted argument, but slanted for the right reasons (you're bound to not find anyone in a doc like this saying "oh, Vietnam, not so bad", unless maybe Liddy). Yet the argument holds strong throughout, about the nature of political practice and the ideals of changing things not going well with the establishment. And there are questions raised for the audience, if not directly: should Lennon, who technically wasn't American, be apart of a movement that was going on, or just stuck to doing his songs and music? (The filmmakers, by the way, wisely cut out much at all to do with the Beatles, albeit they kind of skirmish past the whole issue of "Beatles bigger than Jesus" when it's presented more as a footnote of the outspoken side of Lennon than connecting to the main focus).

It's interesting though to see the footage of the "bed-in", when Lennon and Ono did almost a kind of tour of protest-by-lethargy, and had the press in there as part of the ironic-not-quite-joke of the matter. And there's also fascination in seeing Lennon describe, candidly in archival interviews, the toll the media blitz and upheaval from the government had on him. Only towards the end do the directors start to waver the attention a little bit, even as it is, to be sure, part of the story of Lennon and his eventual tragic death in 1980. But the core idea behind the documentary is one that will always pose something that the viewer should look for: what is it about two unlikely connected figures- popular celebrity musician-cum-activist and one of the craziest presidents this country ever had- that still seems relevant today? Can people take away anything from Lennon's struggle with the powers-that-be? It might be a little obvious (i.e. getting past apathetic stances and doing nothing to just trying to do 'something'), but the point is made nonetheless in the film, and not in a manner that is too schmaltzy or heavy-handed. Just make sure you don't have a BS drug bust to worry about.

A nostalgia-fest for 60's children, but a useless documentary

[dediablo · 3/10 · 14 March 2007]

The title of this film is extremely misleading. I figured that the documentary would cover the CIA, FBI, and federal government's investigations into John Lennon's political activities, revealing little known unclassified documents and giving us some idea as to the depth that the probe into Lennon's activities went. Instead, the movie dragged on for an hour and a half serving no other purpose other than that of a drive down memory lane for Beatles fans. All information presented in the film would have already been known by anyone who was either alive during the 60's or is functionally literate. Even the montaging is poor. The ceaseless clips of Lennon and Yoko could easily have been put together by a high school AV department. Essentially, I went into the movie expecting to learn something I didn't know, but instead came out bored stupid and amazed that even I, a child of the 80's who had no personal experience with the Lennon era, already knew everything the movie had presented, and then some.