Michael Jackson biopic panned by critics, 27 on Rotten Tomatoes 🍅

[Future Lovers 7,533]

9 hours ago, Chromatigaga29 said:

I was at the Hollywood premiere last night and it honestly exceeded my expectations. At the end of the movie they confirm that there is a second part coming. The movie only goes to 1988 and all of the allegations begin in the early 90’s. I’m sure it will be tackled. But I honestly think the media wanted more sensational headlines out of it rather than how they portray Michael as an actual person. I think they did an incredible job and I would make your own decision after seeing it for yourself.

Good friend of mine went to one of the early access showings here as he’s a mega fan and his biggest complaint was that Michael isn’t much of a person at all in the film. He said they sanitized him and sanded all of his edges down until he’s basically a Mr Rogers type with absolutely no defining characteristics whatsoever beyond being talented and if that is true then I fear they did an awful job depicting who MJ is. 

I will see it myself of course but if a life long mega fan is walking out of saying that they botched their presentation of MJ by making him so sweet and faultless that he’d almost angelic (something being echoed by fans online), then I think that’s a problem.   

What can you add on this front? Do they really sand him down and resist showing anything even remotely less than happy go lucky about him and his personality? Or do they just spend two hours deifying him? 

Edited April 22 by Future Lovers

[BrandyFinest 829]

22 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

It won three technical awards and Best Actor.

Best Actor is not as contested but it’s three technical wins (film editing? sound editing, and sound mixing? are quite controversial and were even then and many consider them some of the biggest mistakes the Academy ever made (including some Academy voters).

At the time the film was popular because of Queen mania, but in the years since there has been a reassessment from many who first praised it as they have realized how much of it is complete fabrication made to make the other members of Queen look good.

It completely lies about the other members of the band being on the good and righteous path while Freddie inconvenienced them. It glosses over his sexuality almost entirely. It creates total fabrications about band dynamics and history all so that the other band members could look good.  

The editing is notoriously atrocious (and its Oscar win in this category is mostly credited to the editors having to Frankenstein together two completely different movies from two completely different filmmakers). The writing is notoriously clunky. The performances are mostly mediocre. It gets basic facts intentionally incorrect.

It received extremely poor critical reviews from the jump as anyone who knows even the basics of filmmaking can see it’s a pile of flaming garbage, but over the years even its audience scores have begun to trend downward (it’s fallen out of the 8s range into the 7s on iMDB and decreases a little every year, it has fallen out of the 90s on Rotten Tomatoes’ audience score, and it’s currently on a 3.5 on Letterboxd which is a decrease as well).

It is a bad movie, and has an extremely controversial legacy now that there is some distance between now and the film’s initial release. 

Don't forget to mention the whole Bryan Singer aspect, as if the film couldn't get any more cursed...

[Sugar Baby 1,002]

A biopic about the most boring period of his life ? Or course it was gonna flop 

we wanted to see all the drama in the 90s and yes I am talking about THAT thing 

[Celloo Deng 56,310]

3 hours ago, PartySick said:

I think a good biopic idea for MJ would be to just focus on the creation of HIStory. Literally, starting with the moment the 1993 allegations go public and running through the HIStory Tour would give you, imo, the best bits about him and ample opportunities to flashback to his childhood and early adulthood.

Just sleepily spitballing here 

  Hide contents

 - August 1993: The Dangerous Tour, the allegations go public, Michael hits the stage after crying ("Jam")

- August-November 1993: Insomnia, addiction, loneliness, the cancellation of The Dangerous Tour, rehab, special focus on his relationships with Brad Buxor and Elizabeth Taylor ("Stranger in Moscow")

 - December 1993: The raid at Neverland, Tom Sneddon, the strip search ("D.S.")

 - (Flashback) 1965: MJ at 7 years old performing in strip clubs and being hit by his dad and bullied by his brothers ("Stormy Monday" (T-Bone Walker / Bobby "Blue" Bland))

 - January 1994: Judge refuses a stay on civil suit, settling the civil suit, grand juries refuse to indict due to a lack of evidence

 - February-September 1994: Media frenzy, marriage to Lisa Marie, that horrid kiss at the VMAs, starting work on HIStory ("Money")

 - (Flashback) 1976-1977: The Jacksons Variety Show, Janet joins the brothers on stage, Janet witnesses Joseph's cruelty towards the boys, especially Michael ("I'll Be There")

 - October 1994-May 1995: Confiding in Janet, pain finally turns to anger and righteous fury, HIStory's lead single is dropped ("Scream")

 - Mid-1995: HIStory promotional moves, MJ's "god complex" juxtaposed with a gritty vulnerability and social consciousness ("They Don't Care About Us")

 - (Flashback) 1980: Michael only wins one Grammy for Off the Wall, he feels the industry saw his as "less than" his white contemporaries, Rolling Stone refuses to write a cover story about Off the Wall because "putting a black person on the cover doesn't sell". Michael resolves to create an album so big he can't be ignored ("Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough") 

 - December 1995: The "One Night Only" health failure, divorce, and Lisa Marie admitting she can't save him from his addictions and enablers ("Morphine")

 - February 1996: Stage invasion by Jarvis Cocker (a fantastic representation of Michael pouring his heart out while the industry LITERALLY invades his sanctuary to mock him) ("Earth Song")

 - (Flashback) March 1983-February 1984: Michael's performance of Billie Jean at the Motown 25 special and his record breaking achievement at the 1984 Grammys, proving himself after years of doubt as Thriller becomes the biggest album ever ("Billie Jean")

 -  September 1996: Michael dons the physical and metaphorical golden armor. He's divorced, emaciated, reliant on doctors just to perform, consistently torn apart in American media, tired, isolated, and pissed off. A crowd of 80,000 people cheer as "Scream" starts the show.

The credits song HAS to be "Childhood"

My soundtrack:

01. Jam
02. Stranger in Moscow
03. D.S.
04. Stormy Monday
05. Money
06. I'll Be There
07. Scream
08. They Don't Care About Us
09. Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough
10. Morphine
11. Earth Song
12. Billie Jean
13. Childhood

Definitely rough but I'd find this far more interesting than yet another retelling of the J5-Thriller years. Wouldn't you agree, @Celloo Deng?

Oh hell yeah, his best album, and most biographical. Also Janet and Lisa Marie are essential. This would be an amazing film 

[Bronco 24,772]

7 hours ago, PartySick said:

I went on a little deep dive specifically about the film, the 1993 case, and the 1994 settlement related to it and wow  

I wasn't even aware the original plan was to delve heavily into the allegations and they had to scrap those plans and about $15 million worth of work that was already done after the estate reviewed the '94 settlement 'cause it would have given Evan Chandler's estate or Jordan Chandler himself grounds to file a huge lawsuit for breaching the confidentiality agreement.

I get why the estate wouldn't wanna risk it.

Which begs the question...what the hell are they gonna do?  how can they talk about the second half of his career without mentioning THE defining moment of his later years?

The estate should have never gotten involved, then the story could have been told without a legal problem.

However, this all also makes me feel terrible for Jordan Chandler all over again.

Poor guy's dad was money hungry and abusive, drugged him when he was a kid, used him to extort MJ, leeched off of him until 2005, even tried to sue him to take the money MJ ensured would only be available to Jordan, deadass almost killed him after MJ was acquitted in 05 by hitting him with a dumbbell, spraying him with mace, and choking him, all just to kill himself after MJ died.

And Jordie's still being harassed by Robson and Safechuck's lawyers to make another mockumentary about made up allegations. Bro just wants peace.

I'm torn. I want the allegations covered but I also know that would upend Jordan's life all over again and the dude's been through enough

Damn I may have to read up on the case.

I had no idea the dad did half of that 💀

[Chromatigaga29 119]

2 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

Good friend of mine went to one of the early access showings here as he’s a mega fan and his biggest complaint was that Michael isn’t much of a person at all in the film. He said they sanitized him and sanded all of his edges down until he’s basically a Mr Rogers type with absolutely no defining characteristics whatsoever beyond being talented and if that is true then I fear they did an awful job depicting who MJ is. 

I will see it myself of course but if a life long mega fan is walking out of saying that they botched their presentation of MJ by making him so sweet and faultless that he’d almost angelic (something being echoed by fans online), then I think that’s a problem.   

What can you add on this front? Do they really sand him down and resist showing anything even remotely less than happy go lucky about him and his personality? Or do they just spend two hours deifying him? 

I wouldn’t say they sanitized him. They absolutely showed him in a positive light but they didn’t shy away from some of the heavier topics. It did focus more on his ambition and how his early upbringing shaped the way he progressed in life. I’m trying not to get too specific for the sake of spoilers. As far as depicting him in a negative light vs in an infallible one, I’m not sure what they could’ve added to do so. I wouldn’t say they depicted him as someone who could do no wrong, but rather as someone who found a way forward in spite of his own shadows.

[River 127,317]

If I'm honest.. there are so many good impersonators out there, that doing justice to MJ, and not just mimicking him, but living in his mind and knows every little gesture, move, pronunciation, that makes Jafar looks like a parody of MJ.. it's exactly the same problem that the Queen movie had..

Also.. nobody gives a f-ck about the Jackson 5 period.

Cutting Janet is stupid, there's literally no Michael without Janet in his life story.. it's disrespectful to her legacy.

 

[Easy 5,319]

Just watched it and I didn’t enjoy as much as I thought I would.

It felt like watching a Wikipedia page. Even the humor of him wasn’t captured well. I would like more information about the 90s as well. It’s really meh.

The portrayal of Joseph Jackson was the highlight and Jafar isn’t bad at all. In fact he is quite a convincing MJ throughout the nose change journey.

[Red 99,106]

Knowing it was made by the same makers of that one Queen movie, watch the locals praise it to the heavens and it getting showered with award nominations regardless

[Celloo Deng 56,310]

2 hours ago, River said:

nobody gives a f-ck about the Jackson 5 period.

[River 127,317]

34 minutes ago, Celloo Deng said:

 

[Carsonu25 280]

I'm a huge MJ fan but I won't be wasting my money on this crap we've seen this story multiple times once they get to the BAD album that's the end of the show, some of Michael's great art was made after the BAD album regardless of the allegations they should have told his whole story not the same crap everytime. I'm over it one of MJ's greatest albums was Dangerous and it's like it doesn't exists. 

[PartySick 172,395]

6 hours ago, Bronco said:

Damn I may have to read up on the case.

I had no idea the dad did half of that 💀

Yeah, Evan Chandler was a monster. He tried to extort MJ 'cause he got close to his ex-wife and kids (surrogate family and all). Threatened to tell the press that MJ was molesting his son if he didn't pay him and while Mike laughed it off he did agree to fund one of Evan's projects with the stipulation that Jordan be a part of it 'cause, at 14, Jordan still wanted his dad around. Evan refused and went to some scummy lawyers to start cooking up the allegations.

I think one of the most damning things he did was dose Jordan with sodium amytal after pulling one of Jordan's teeth (Evan was a dentist) and then he aggressively grilled Jordan about MJ messing with him.

If you know anything about sodium amytal, it "dramatically lowers inhibitions and makes the patient wildly suggestible". Interrogating a child with leading questions while they are under the influence of a hypnotic sedative? Textbook recipe for implanting false memories. This was the first time Jordan "confessed" that something happened, he maintained that Michael never did anything before that.

I wish I could remember the name of the book I read...it came out maybe a year or two after Michael died but it presented all the facts of the 1993 case and what happened afterwards in gruesome detail and then told you to come to your own conclusions.

I'm just not sure how people can know the real story and then still conclude that Michael did anything but such is life  

[MACATL 2,125]

There is no way to ever get a biopic even close to the actual truth when it comes to MJ, especially when it’s Jackson family backed and acted.  Further, if the “controversial” topic was fully delved into there’d be absolutely no way to depict this as people are firm in their beliefs regarding this.  If a movie hinted at possible truth to the allegations, people would be threatening the lives of everyone involved.  

[PartySick 172,395]

7 minutes ago, MACATL said:

There is no way to ever get a biopic even close to the actual truth when it comes to MJ, especially when it’s Jackson family backed and acted.  Further, if the “controversial” topic was fully delved into there’d be absolutely no way to depict this as people are firm in their beliefs regarding this.  If a movie hinted at possible truth to the allegations, people would be threatening the lives of everyone involved.  

I don't even think they need to go that deep into detail. One of the biggest reasons people assume Michael was guilty is 'cause he settled the civil suit in 1993.

Covering that alone and telling the audience about the catch-22 he was in, the judge refusing to stay the case until after criminal proceedings (which CA law allowed at the time), Michael deciding to protect his own constitutional rights and freedom rather than his wallet, and then two grand juries refusing to even indict on criminal charges anyway due to a lack of evidence would be enough to challenge the general thinking.

Largely leaves the kids out of it, prevents the film makers from having to dramatize the majority of the mess, and provides enough context that people who were otherwise casual fans or casual tabloid readers can go "oh? Let me read up on this".