Dan1863Sickles 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.

dunmore_ego 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.

bob the moo 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.

JoeKarlosi As a die-hard Beatles and John Lennon fan I deliberately dragged my feet in catching this recent documentary, thinking I'd probably have seen it all, particularly with respect to rare footage. I also figured since I knew the basics of the story, I wouldn't be very impressed. Boy, was I wrong - not only in that there are some nice unusual snippets of interviews with Lennon ("time wounds all heels" - heh heh!), but also in the power of this retrospective on the man. I've never been much interested in politics, but this had me hooked from beginning to end regarding John's struggle with the government over his controversial political leanings and then the underhanded, fearful, and evil tactics used by Nixon and his cronies to try and get Lennon deported from the country. As I grow older I feel that I am in the middle with a tendency to veer more to what they call the "right", but this film had me pulled strongly back over to the "left" and made me re-think who the "good guys and the bad guys" really are.In addition to being treated to various vintage pieces of exciting Lennon footage, what I loved about this presentation most was that I thought it nailed John as a person right on the bullseye. In many ways I would recommend this film to newcomers, perhaps even over the more traditional IMAGINE: JOHN LENNON (1988). While this one's focus is largely on the man's politics, it also gives an excellent picture of Lennon's biting sarcasm, his wit, his rebellious nature, his tender side, his love, his hopes, his humanity, and all those other things that we fans came to love about him and made us feel like we could relate to him and knew him. When the inevitable tragic end comes to be, we are truly shaken and saddened after 90 minutes with this special person who contributed so much.Once again I will add that although so many Beatle and "Lennon fans" are so "anti-Yoko," I can't for the life of me understand how they can watch a sincere movie like this which features Yoko's heartfelt recollections fairly frequently, and still view her with such disdain after this experience - especially in light of the fact that she and John obviously loved each other, and Lennon always needed someone just like her, all of his life. It's so naturally presented here that even in his early days John was always a bit different, always outspoken and controversial, and desperately required a woman who was his ultimate equal in that department. Listen to their words, watch them together. Try to forget that the Beatles split up, and just respect the man's needs and realize how right John and Yoko's union was, and that it was meant to be. John Lennon still shines on, like the moon, and the stars, and the sun. ***1/2 out of ****