Michael | Official Trailer

It is your opinion that the reviewers got it "wrong". Art is subjective and some people like terrible movies, it happens.

But surely you are not saying that these reviewers are lying? That they actually liked the movie but said it was terrible out of some sort of anti Michael Jackson sentiment? What exactly are you saying?

No, I think reading between the lines its a movie that is kind of set up to lose from a media critic point of view regardless.

As in, they tell a story about his art, they'll criticise it for trying to whitewash him. And if they include the allegations etc, they'll criticise the main character and the movie because of it. It was the same as the Broadway show some years back.

MJ fans and those who hate him due to the allegations fall into the same obsessive camps either send of the spectrum. The fans think of him as an angel. The people who hate him will accuse him of only singing because it was his grand plan to get to children and his dancing was so kids could copy him and make them "attractive" in his eyes (Yep, I've seen that argument many a time)

I love his music. Never saw him live in the 80s or 90s and I can accept he was a troubled, controversial and potentially criminal human being. But he was a brilliant artist and I enjoyed the movie and dont think the 1/5 and 1/10 reviews are warranted at all. I'd give it 6.5. The acting was very good but the writing could have been a lot better and the dynamics of the various relationships should have been explored more

Interestingly, they cut clips of him doing the door to door Jeovah Witness thing he used to do and Diana Ross was meant to be a major role in the movie but they had to cut those scenes. Probably due to DR's team

With a public figure, if you make a review where everyone appears to be a caricature. It's not unreasonable to give it one or two stars. I do think his background has plenty of story worth telling and that's ignoring the abuse issue. Eg the Ebert review basically critiques the lack of any real character depth and it made Michael into a pretty simple character. If you're just gonna recreate events with no real depth then that's a pretty terrible movie. I also think this is pretty consistent reviewing in contrast to previous reviews from Kermode or Ebert. Eg the Back to Black review from Ebert got 0.5 stars.

My rose tinted glasses?

So me saying he was a great artist and I enjoyed the movie but recognise he was deeply troubled, controversial and a possible criminal is me wearing rose tinted glasses?

And you expect his estate, who's only aim is to make money off his music and image is to portray that side of him? Along with his family members?

Guess I know which camp you fall into

**** hell... So because I think its not a 1/10 movie and like his music means I'm blind and dont recognise his potential perverted crimes?

From what I've read, they were going to include the 1993 allegations but had to cut it due to the NDA both parties signed in 1994

I agree with you on this. Artistically, apart from the roles of Michael, Young Michael and his Father, there's nothing in it. The performance of Human Nature is cool because the audio feels like you're in the venue. But thats it. If its true, that the man himself was an artistic perfectionist, then he'd be disgusted with it.

Commercially, it'll be hugely successful.

Artistically and writing wise, my rating would be a 3 or 4 out of 10.

Entertainment wise, I would give it a 6.5.

Acting, I think Colman and Jaafar are brilliant and done great with what they were given.

I dont think its possible to create a movie about the man that ticks all the boxes.

I mean from the perspective that there was so much going on, how do you even began to cover it all?

Think I said it in one of my earlier posts, I was let down that they didn't explore how his physical, mental, his family and racial issues and his unriveled determination to get to the top molded his mindset in the time period the movie was set in. Because that turned him into something he hated and he couldn't see it.

Chamon people...it's just a movie

People need to just chill

Nowt to do with his accusations or movie...

Him and Quincy were the dream team

That vocal ...

but as someone noted above, even if they ignore the child abuse again, what can you put into a second film that isn’t hugely damaging to his public image?

The addiction to painkillers? Pissing away all his money? The plastic surgery? His (allegedly) sham marriage to Lisa Marie? The unexplained conception of his children? Dangling a baby over a balcony? The Jarvis Cocker incident? Dying alone in the hands of an incompetent doctor?

The worst thing is, there’s a great movie in there, but it will never see the light of day.

Haven't seen the film and would have no interest in seeing it either.

I don't tend to like these sanitised 'official' biography products. I watched 'Bohemian Rapsody' and 'Rocket Man'. They were ok but clearly could have been much much better with a more honest approach. For example I liked 'The Doors' film and 'Behind the Candelabra' as they were more gritty and realistic.

The people behind 'Michael' claim that its part 1 of a 2 or maybe 3 part set of films. As someone else already posted its difficult to see how part 2 and definitely part 3 are not going to be pretty grim soo there isn't really going to be much of a pay-off for the people behind it, soo that seems like a smokescreen.

In other words "Enjoy our origin story of Michael Jackson which goes right up to the point where he got very famous, never mind the wierd stuff that happened later, we might deal with that in a sequel"

It'll make that