Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Michael | Official Trailer

1246716

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,138 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    And that very much so sounds like a rewrite of history. Eg the posters who are particularly passionate about this movie very much so approve of history being rewritten on Jackson. On top of that, even his own family have taken issue with the script and in the case of Janet Jackson, she asked to be omitted entirely.

    Meanwhile we've got a poster declaring people as scum for having an issue with the film...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Mainstream Media scum with an agenda. Don't forget the nefarious Mainstream Media (Woke ™ )



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    How is it rewriting history that I would side eye anyone for watching a movie about alleged child abuse? The same way I side eye Jackson about his alleged crimes?

    I enjoyed the film. I enjoy his music. He was a superstar and an amazing artist and performer. But also know he was messed up mentally and potentially committed horrendous crimes. I can separate the two.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    Was looking forward to seeing this movie until I read the Empire review, https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/michael-2026/

    I find it incomprehensible that the makers simply decided to pretend there was no elephant in the room or even acknowledge the allegations with an end credits reference or something. If the rumoured second movie goes ahead I'll be first in the queue but I won't be holding my breath.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,403 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    i love this line:

    Instead, it’s a deeply generic music biopic, the kind that would make even Dewey Cox raise his eyebrows. 

    😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,138 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    I'm saying it's rewriting history to make a movie that pretty much portrays him as a saint.

    In terms of side eyeing somebody who watches a movie that details a factual story that relates to allegations of abuse that's pretty much a weird effort to malign people who think this is a story that amounts to whitewashing. This is a biopic, it isn't supposed to simply be portraying a performer performing. If I read a biography of a musician or anyone well known, it doesn't general ignore the awkward bits and focus on their career.

    I also don't really get why people seem to be personally offended by critic's reactions. You can enjoy the movie but in general, it's not considered to be a very good movie. In terms of the optics of the movie, lots of people are gonna have criticisms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Well, in fairness, I believe that part of his settlement was that his estate couldn't profit from his (alleged) actions so they had to remove. But the biggest problem most people seem to have is that, yeah, it paints his as some sort of pure innocent almost messiah savant. It's one thing to ignore history for legal reasons, it's another thing to attempt to redefine history



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    No. The reason I said I side eye people who want that in a movie is because I have read weird things from people online, wanting a movie showing his alleged paedophilia. Its one thing to address accusations, its another to show alleged crimes of such horrific acts. (Not from anyone here obviously)

    But as the point was made above, anyone who thinks a money making machine was going to address that, when the sole aim is making money off his music and art is sadly mistaken.

    Its like the Bohemian Rhapsody movie. They done Freddie dirty, just to make Brian and Roger look good. Both happened to be producers for the movie

    Also, I assume you're not trying to say I'm offended by the critics? Because all I said was some of the reviews are a bit harsh. Its definitely not a 1/10 movie. About 6 or 6.5



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Must admit, I dont think it paints him as a saint or accurately, focuses on that theme. It mostly paints his creativeness and his struggle against Joe. Basically the two themes of the movie



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    The 2 Jackson family members not involved in the movie are his sister Janet, with one insider claiming "Janet's always been insanely jealous of Michael, and her career is in the toilet".

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/JacksonsEmpire/posts/3910203219116113/

    And his daughter Paris has been involved in a long running bitter legal dispute with Michael's Estate.

    She's also criticized the movie's director.

    https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4026661994133671

    Reports too that Janet has been encouraging Paris to step up action against Michael's Estate.

    https://globemagazine.com/janet-jackson-and-niece-paris-jackson-locked-in-bitter-feud-with-family-over-michael-jackson-biopic/

    You wouldn't know though.

    And regarding Dorothy Byrne, yes she is $¢úm. If Michael was alive that hit piece called Leaving Neverland wouldn't have been made. The director said so himself. The dead have no legal protection from defamation, his Estate and family can't sue. The producers know this. The accusers/liars from Leaving Neverland know there's no repercussions for them either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    "Also, I'm not sure that "produced by his estate and family" is the ringing endorsement of this film's narrative integrity you seem to think it is."

    I didn't say it was a ringing endorsement. I mean they're going to keep a tight rein on what's included. I wouldn't fully trust the executors of his Estate, or how they even got into that position. But that's entirely another matter.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,922 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    It's at 96% now.

    Screenshot_2026-04-24-07-46-23-735-edit_com.android.chrome.jpg

    The movie critic score has improved too. It's gone from an initial score of 27%(iirc) to 40%.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,138 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    It's called review bombing. I wouldn't consider 40% to be great on any given day. It does drop back down to 24%. To bump up the score you just need some 3/5 reviews. The reality is you can polish a turd but it doesn't change the reality.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    It’s not like the RT audience score is famously open to manipulation by a vocal fanbase.

    IMG_7144.jpeg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69 ✭✭X0PHER


    I'm going to see it on Sunday, and I would take reviews with a pinch of salt. Reviewers are there to get clicks onto their links and give their own opinion which is completely different to yours. Just watch the movie and read the reviews later.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,710 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    That earlier script (which was discussed on the rest is entertainment) sounds more interesting starting with a raid on Neverland....this film seems a bit....er white washed....ironically...

    I would say will still do monster box office.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    The irony of this lad saying that the media had an agenda against Jackson.

    The desperation to defend Michael constantly and to degrade and insult anyone who isn't bowing at his altar is truely Trumpian!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Reviewers there to get clicks? Seriously? What nonsense. A good review will probably get more clicks. I'm of the opinion if a whole bunch of critics, who work independently from each other, release similar opinions around the same time then there must be some truth in it.

    Of course you don't have to agree but to say critics are bad as it's a personal opinion is just crazy, I mean what other opinion could they have?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Who said you couldn't have an opinion or enjoy yourself but just because you enjoyed it or liked the movie, it does not mean the critics are wrong.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    Fair point. The trailer would seem to validate a lot of the review's criticisms though. I'm sure I'll watch it at some point, if not in the cinema.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Well, Kermode (who certainly does NOT need to play for the clicks) rates it there with Melania



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    I said I'd read one of the critical critic reviews, just to see have they got any point. I read the IGN review, which gave it 3/10.

    The reviewer waffles on for 5 paragraphs, largely being critical of Michael and the movie. By the time it gets into the movie itself, this is the opening line, "After opening at some undetermined point in the 1980s, where we only get a glimpse of Jackson’s shoes, the story begins in earnest in the ’60s with the formation of the Jackson 5,…"

    It's not undetermined though if you know Michael and his eras. It's 1988.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Are you suggesting that, before going to see a movie telling someone's life story, you should already know said person's life story?

    Have you seen the movie? Did you like it?

    Post edited by MrStuffins on


  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,403 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    listening to it now….. ouch!

    he makes a very valid point that if this is supposed to be the first movie, and doesn't even attempt to deal with the weird and unsavory stuff, then HOW do they make a second movie in which all the whole other darker side of MJ would have to be shown.

    Kermode accuses this movie of actively trying to create a whole new untrue story, and claims that he was wholly uncomfortable all through this show.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭Unearthly


    Looks like it will do about 90 million USD opening weekend in US alone which is quite strong. Would need to make over 400 million globally to go into profit territory which it should do even if the opening weekend is flooded with fanboys



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Just watched it.

    Says that they tried so hard to make it a messiah story that the content ended up being laugh-out-loud funny.

    I mean, how do you miss with something like this? It's an incredible story, with incredible songs. There's terrible family tragedy, there's horrible allegations, the man is probably the most famous man to have ever existed……… and you still manage to make a dud? Woof!



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,403 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    it will absolutely do well in the US in this current trumpian climate of ignoring paedophilia and facts.

    i can see it bombing outside of the US though.



Advertisement
Advertisement