- Awards
- 52
I'll wait until it's available to stream and then I'll watch it.
I recently saw the play MJ The Musical in London's West End and I think the play covers the same time period as the film. It was very good so I'm hoping I'll enjoy the film just as much.
I recently saw the play MJ The Musical in London's West End and I think the play covers the same time period as the film. It was very good so I'm hoping I'll enjoy the film just as much.
- Awards
- 19
Now his family members are making allegations about him. When that much money is involved, you just can't tell what the truth was.
- Awards
- 18
I love Tom Breihan's review in Stereogum. I've posted a few quotes, but it's worth reading in full if you can spare the time.
stereogum.com
Parts of Michael are so good that I couldn't believe what I was seeing, just as parts of Michael are so bad that I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
The whole time that Michael was playing in front of me, I knew that I was being manipulated for nefarious purposes. Most of that time, I did not care. If you don't care about Michael Jackson's music or iconography, there is absolutely no reason to go see Michael. On its own merits, it's barely a movie. But if you do love his music — if you grew up with it, if it's part of your being — then Michael is pure and effective fan service. I had a great time.
Why are you reading this review? You know how you feel. If you detest Michael Jackson, if you see him as an Epstein-esque avatar of unaccountable abuse and corruption, then this film will horrify you. If you are a Jackson defender who truly believes he was innocent, then this movie was made for you, and you are probably already going crazy in the mentions of all the critics who didn't like it. Congratulations to you.
I don't represent either of those groups. I'm among the masses who love Michael Jackson's music and who think he was probably a monster. I can't let the music go. It's part of me. I also can't pretend, as the film does, that the person who made this music was a pure, blameless force of light in the universe. Michael is not the Michael Jackson biopic that gives a full, unvarnished view of a human being who lived a life of great and tragic and consequential contradiction. That biopic will never exist. Instead, Michael is a cursed cultural object, and it's also a fun night out at the movies. Make your decisions accordingly.
This is the best, most fascinating, most comprehensive thing I've ever watched/listened to about Michael Jackson. It's the closest I've found to a Jacko equivalent of the mind-blowing O.J.: Made in America documentary, but it's a podcast series not a movie so it's a different, more time-consuming thang:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...with-emily-lordi/id1556457357?i=1000661876665
I Didn't Hate 'Michael'
I did the “whoo.” You know the “whoo.” It’s the climax of Michael Jackson’s 1979 song “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” a pop masterpiece if ever there was one. It’s the big crescendo. The guitars scream. The horns blare. In the incredibly low-budget video, three Michael Jacksons dance together...
stereogum.com
Parts of Michael are so good that I couldn't believe what I was seeing, just as parts of Michael are so bad that I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
The whole time that Michael was playing in front of me, I knew that I was being manipulated for nefarious purposes. Most of that time, I did not care. If you don't care about Michael Jackson's music or iconography, there is absolutely no reason to go see Michael. On its own merits, it's barely a movie. But if you do love his music — if you grew up with it, if it's part of your being — then Michael is pure and effective fan service. I had a great time.
Why are you reading this review? You know how you feel. If you detest Michael Jackson, if you see him as an Epstein-esque avatar of unaccountable abuse and corruption, then this film will horrify you. If you are a Jackson defender who truly believes he was innocent, then this movie was made for you, and you are probably already going crazy in the mentions of all the critics who didn't like it. Congratulations to you.
I don't represent either of those groups. I'm among the masses who love Michael Jackson's music and who think he was probably a monster. I can't let the music go. It's part of me. I also can't pretend, as the film does, that the person who made this music was a pure, blameless force of light in the universe. Michael is not the Michael Jackson biopic that gives a full, unvarnished view of a human being who lived a life of great and tragic and consequential contradiction. That biopic will never exist. Instead, Michael is a cursed cultural object, and it's also a fun night out at the movies. Make your decisions accordingly.
This is the best, most fascinating, most comprehensive thing I've ever watched/listened to about Michael Jackson. It's the closest I've found to a Jacko equivalent of the mind-blowing O.J.: Made in America documentary, but it's a podcast series not a movie so it's a different, more time-consuming thang:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...with-emily-lordi/id1556457357?i=1000661876665
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
I think the combination of the Neverland controversy and the commercial appeal of the music is simply too paradoxical for a commercial, satisfying piece of entertainment.
Defenders would be appalled by the allegations and detesters would be appalled by the display of Michael's artistic success that sort of "evens things out".
Too bad Michael Jackson is not a fictional character.
In the early 90s we had house hits with titles like "James Brown Is Dead" and "Michael Jackson Is In Heaven Now" so maybe it would be interesting to tell the story from an afterlife point of view. A semi-fictional, kitsch musical - nothing said but everything implied - the "Bad" song played in hell but still with dancing devils and stuff.
Michael outsmarts the devil when he buys Hell and calls in NeverTalkAboutAnymore Land, Michael in a TV quiz "catch the baby", Michael meets Elvis, Michael meets angel Michael played by John Travolta in 1996. The possibilities are endless.
Defenders would be appalled by the allegations and detesters would be appalled by the display of Michael's artistic success that sort of "evens things out".
Too bad Michael Jackson is not a fictional character.
In the early 90s we had house hits with titles like "James Brown Is Dead" and "Michael Jackson Is In Heaven Now" so maybe it would be interesting to tell the story from an afterlife point of view. A semi-fictional, kitsch musical - nothing said but everything implied - the "Bad" song played in hell but still with dancing devils and stuff.
Michael outsmarts the devil when he buys Hell and calls in NeverTalkAboutAnymore Land, Michael in a TV quiz "catch the baby", Michael meets Elvis, Michael meets angel Michael played by John Travolta in 1996. The possibilities are endless.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 44
Thanks - I've done exactly that. I must say the idea of computer animated Bubbles playing Twister isn't without appeal.
Mark Kermode's review popped up in my feed a couple of days ago. Seems he enjoyed it less than Tom, but was equally conflicted and reached similar conclusions about the film's absences.
Mark Kermode said:
Mark Kermode said:
Mark Kermode said:
* Since he name-dropped it, I'll mention that Mark's scathing review of Melania is my most-rewatched video review of all time for the biting passion with which he discusses it.
- Awards
- 8
I'm not enough of a Michael Jackson fan to have any interest in this movie, especially since it appears to be just estate-driven corporate propaganda to whitewash Michael's complicated legacy.
One reviewer called it a tribute act masquerading as a movie, and that appears about right. I can't imagine why fans would even want to see that. I was relieved when the Madonna biopic fell through. As a fan, why would I want to watch Julia Garner doing embalmed recreations of Madonna's performances when I can just watch Madonna's performances?
One reviewer called it a tribute act masquerading as a movie, and that appears about right. I can't imagine why fans would even want to see that. I was relieved when the Madonna biopic fell through. As a fan, why would I want to watch Julia Garner doing embalmed recreations of Madonna's performances when I can just watch Madonna's performances?
- Awards
- 19
Heh.
After watching that Melania review, I literally experience went into spontaneous and immediate explosive diarrhea.
Literally. Diarrhea.
- Awards
- 27
Is the estate in anyway involved with the production or distribution of the film? From what I can gather they could prevent the use of Michael's music in case the film would include parts that the estate wouldn't support.
Therefore it's also possible that the film is the result of "what's left of it" after certain parts had been no-voted out. As a film maker you could ask yourself if it's worth to make such drastic concessions at the expense of artistic integrity.
Unless, as speculated, there is going to be a sequel that doesn't need the music and so they'll have the freedom to focus on the media frenzy about the (alleged) sordid stuff.
If there has been any whitewashing going on then it's not about showing the worshipping and philantrophy because that also really happened.
- Awards
- 52
I'm not sure I agree with the comments about the film whitewashing Michael Jackson's life story. The film's aim was to tell his story from when he was young up until the release of his best known work (Thriller and Bad) and the allegations of child abuse and the court cases were after than period. In the same approach taken for the film Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) didn't cover all of Freddie Mercury's life, just his early years through to Live Aid.