Waste of time

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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 ****

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.

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.

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.