Latest on MJJC

"Michael", a biopic about Michael Jackson, is officially happening.

I have just seen the movie and one thing I noticed was missing, besides the obvious part, was Michael and Katherine going from door to door as Jehova witnesses. I remember there being pictures on the Internet and it was talked about, but that part was not at all mentioned in the movie.


I loved the movie, the visual and the music, but a slight downer was... it felt a bit rushed. I guess I was right when saying there is to much for only two movies. If you throw in the trial and properly doing some reenactments, three movies should have been planned.
 
www.rottentomatoes.com

Michael | Rotten Tomatoes

Discover reviews, ratings, and trailers for Michael on Rotten Tomatoes. Stay updated with critic and audience scores today!
www.rottentomatoes.com www.rottentomatoes.com

Now at 35%. Ratings are getting better. Slowly at least. I hope it will be 50%+ in one week.

Good friend of mine was hyped about watching it, and now he is not any more after reading this bad critiques. I can't blame him. I might react similarly as a non diehard fan. I guess he will still watch it and probably even like it. I just wonder if the critiques still hinder a lot of people in going to the cinema..
 
Last edited:
I just saw it in Hamburg Germany and I can't remember when I was last in a full cinema, I mean there were people sitting in the first row! And it was overwhelmingly young people.
Gotta say, the last few days the negative reviews made me doubtful. And the movie confirmed some of those doubts, especially the pacing, but while watching it there was no room to fuss about any of that. What they said about deitifying him is absolute nonsense, that was just his life, that is the crazy thing. The only real concern I had was that it could have been so much longer. I genuinely really enjoyed that and it was absolutely epic and I had to hold back tears a couple of times (but there were lots of people who couldn't hold it in). And it was obvious that a ton of people really enjoyed it. They actually started clapping and singing after it ended which was great.
Colman was such a menace, he made the whole room hate Joe and obviously all the impersonations we have seen over the years are nothing compared to Jaafar.
I think as a formulaic biopic that seemed rushed in the end it still absolutely delivers. But I need to process what I have just seen, or what I haven't seen. Now that I think about it I'm still mad that they cut out Diana Ross. And it makes me angry that we won't see this first half of his life better explored with those amazing performances.
I will see it again on Sunday for the first time in IMAX.
 
MJ5 said:
www.rottentomatoes.com

Michael | Rotten Tomatoes

Discover reviews, ratings, and trailers for Michael on Rotten Tomatoes. Stay updated with critic and audience scores today!
www.rottentomatoes.com www.rottentomatoes.com

Now at 35%. Ratings are getting better. Slowly at least. I hope it will be 50%+ in one week.

Good friend of mine was hyped about watching it, and now he is not any more after reading this bad critiques. I can't blame him. I might react similarly as a non diehard fan. I guess he will still watch it and probably even like it. I just wonder if the critiques still hinder a lot of people in going to the cinema..
Click to expand...
I think it evens out, honestly. For every one person I saw who was worried about the negative reviews, I saw another who said “I’m absolutely seeing it now because no way is it that bad.”
 
True.. and what else is positive: that everyone is writing about Michael again. Usually also "bad news is good news" as people continue talking and most build their own opinion anyway.

I wish there was more talk about accusers and how they try to get money. So the overall picture of Michael could get better also.. Stories about Faking Michael podcast etc are lacking imo.
 
flamyyy said:
I just saw it in Hamburg Germany and I can't remember when I was last in a full cinema, I mean there were people sitting in the first row! And it was overwhelmingly young people.
Click to expand...
I live in a small town in the South West of the UK and tonight Michael was sold out. This never happens, especially on a Wednesday. I spoke to the cinema manager, Michael sold 90% capacity for 4 showings today.

It's also sold 80% tomorrow and Saturday is sold 90% across 9 different screenings.

There are only 40,000 people in my town. Tonight the age range was between 9 and 70 years old.

For my little town, the numbers so far are unprecedented ❤️
 
Oh my, just came out the cinema, this really wasn't for me I guess...
Characters felt so one dimensional, the pacing was bad, the Jackson brothers are just props, their only lines in the whole movie are "hey Mike". They barely mention vitiligo, there's a song every five minutes, it just becomes tiring to hear them all the time. The landmark moments of his career don't feel iconic at all, like the Motown 25 performance for example just feels like some random performance, same with Thriller and Beat it... You don't really get to feel how impactful it is or how it shifted his career. You don't really get to feel the scale of his fame. They barely touched on his traumas such as how bad he felt in his skin, it just looks like he got a nose job because he felt like it, and when he reveals he has vitiligo it's like "oh yeah, I got this skin condition, no big deal though".
The sound mixing didn't give the songs any punch imo, it felt like background music while watching the live performances rather than it coming directly from MJ and his band. I feel like basing this whole plot on "Michael is a good boy and Joseph is the villain that prevents him from having a solo career" was a step in the wrong direction. I don't really know what they would do with a part two, especially if they can't mention the allegations.

First impressions: 4/10
 
Just in the door.

I'm glad to say that I enjoyed it, for the most part - it's far from a great film but no where near as bad as some reviews made out. It just feels too safe and way too rushed. I agree with many of the reviews that called it shallow at times.

Like Bohemian Rhapsody the audience shots are abysmal and completely ruin each performance. Far too many. A few of us here had that fear.

Lovely Jacksons and Jackson 5 song inclusions.

Wembley audio used for Victory performances not a good sign for a release.

Ultimately, I just dont think it ever got properly going, it felt very jumpy like you never got to fully get to know anyone, even Michael.

Great performance from Jaafar. The makeup/cgi dept earned their wages.

I really hope it will be a hit with the public. It was sold out tonight which was really cool.
 
CodaBroda said:
it's going to be considered "whitewashed" without including the allegations.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise a movie for picking and choosing only positive elements of MJs life and character.

Cinnamon234 said:
This is not constructive criticism. This is coming from a place of hate and anger for some. The reviews have been filled with vitriol. Have you read some of them?
Click to expand...
No I haven't. I'm not that interested in reading them. I'm not discussing any one particular review, I'm discussing the principle that, in general, a review should summarise the strong points AND the weak points of the movie, without being labelled as a personal attack on MJs character. Some of those reviewers love MJ, but I'd see it as unprofessional if they gave the movie 10/10 just because they like listening to Off The Wall. Lol.

Cinnamon234 said:
That's why there is apparently a part 2 coming where the controversies will be addressed.
Click to expand...
Reviewers don't deal with "apparently". They review the movie they watched.

Omar222 said:
These reviews below just highlight how biased the legacy media are - I mean the BBC headline is that it's 'barely a competent day time TV movie'?! I'm looking forward to watching it.
Click to expand...
Hang on... You're criticising a reviewer because he didn't like the movie, and yet you have absolutely no idea how good/bad it is because you haven't seen it? How does that work? How do you know it's not a "daytime TV movie"?

Themidwestcowboy said:
I mean, Comeon. Not even the worst, worst, most terrible movies made by humans have received a 1/10. It’s just so ridiculous and pathetic.
Click to expand...
Why?! Half of all movies ever made are below average, and 10% of all movies are so bad they deserve 1/10. How come you're struggling to accept that?

RodSerling said:
The cassette is the reason why there s only 13 songs and 60 minutes of music in the soundtrack, where they could have filled a whole 80 minutes of a CD ( and that's anyway a double release for the vinyl version).
Click to expand...
Huh? Cassette is longer than CD, the most common length being 90 mins (I used to get about 11 songs on each side.). First MJ album I got was a cassette that was literally called "18 Greatest Hits".

Soldier of Love said:
Does the movie show Michael going to New York and starring in The Wiz?
Click to expand...
It is kinda ironic that a movie about MJ would ignore the two movies MJ actually starred in.

Soldier of Love said:
I didn't think about it until more info started coming out. I'm wondering should I really be supporting this movie as a die-hard Michael Jackson fan.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. Nobody should feel compelled to like a movie just because MJ is in it.

If anything, it would appear most people in this thread are too emotionally connected to the subject matter, and are therefore not in a position to make a valid judgement on the quality of the movie.

Lightbringer said:
Everyone can rate the film and leave a review at IMDB now
Click to expand...
I was one of the first people worldwide to leave a review of This Is It on IMDB :) Never left a "thumbs up" though. That must be some new thing they're using to increase user interaction. Yawn. So tired of websites wanting me to waste as much of my time as possible.

ChanceToDance said:
you see MJ as a kid and suddenly it transitions to the year 1978 and Michael is just about to release Off The Wall with no mention of The Wiz.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the period from age 14-20 was very productive and very informative for MJ, yet this period is always left out.

Victorious said:
So.. if The Estate had countered the allegations and other false facts about him in any way (other than legal,)) then no one cared this was is a feelgood biopic mainly celebrating his artestry and the reviews would be awesome. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The estate knew the movie would get panned if it ignored the biggest talking point in MJ's life. They saw it coming. And yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Also, is it a feel good biopic? Seems the main point is Joe's violence?

MsAshley said:
i just read some critics reviews. why are they all so pissed off it doesnt detail the chandler allegations??? these people wtf
Click to expand...
What with it being the turning point of his career and everything.

Strangerintheworld said:
And I met MJ fans irl for the first time!!!
Click to expand...
That's the sad part. That people these days haven't seen what it was like when every kid in the class loved MJs music. :-(
 
Sadly, Michael deserved a much better movie than this.

For someone as exciting as Michael was they make his life seem rather ordinary and passive. And theres not enough depth on frankly anything.

One and done for me.

Shout out to Jafaar's speaking voice. Scarily accurate at times.
 
Just came back from the movie.. a double opinion: for the ‘new fan’ this movie is just a good introduction into the MJ universe, but for the longtime fans the thing isn’t the solid product we were hoping it to be.

Honestly, as a lifelong MJ fan, I enjoyed the Bohemian Rhapsody movie better..

Spoilers ahead:
The Michael movie starts pretty okay, but many details are left in the dark.. he and his brothers ‘just get scouted’ for motown when performing a gig.

Many memorable songs are left out.. if you start with the J5 era, why leave out a Motown medley?

The roles for Q and Berry Gordy were very underscripted. Other people in the creative process were also left out when telling the Thriller story which takes away some of MJ’s creative magic.

The movie, for me, took a turning point right at the 1984 Victory Tour part.. while almost completely ignoring the Destiny and Troumph era, Off The Wall gets a relatively small part.. it ‘just makes him a bigger artist’. THen the Victory part starts.. the ‘last concert of the tour’ gets introduced with MJ wearing his clothes from the opening night... Then it continues using Wembley 88 audio (it sounds like a blend from 2 nights, not using the available Victory Tour multi’s they have) for the Human Nature performance.. where MJ does some sidegliding and stuff.. which he never did during the Victory era.. skipping Heartbreak Hotel (which was in the earlier trailer) and then showing MJ getting back on stage for a performance of WDAN.. IN HIS BILLIE JEAN OUTFIT. this is were i got annoyed as a fan.. during WDAN MJ gives the ‘this is our last and final tour’ speech, which is the actual same speech from the last LA concert.. but it happens during a different song. Why acknowledge the actual lines from the speech but change the song, outfits/staging surrounding it.. ?!
What do I mean? Just imagine/pretend seeing MJ opening his concert singing WBSS in his SC outfit… same thing, outrageous!! Must admit the WDAN breakdown sounded quite funky.. i liked that actually.

Then the movie immediately skips 4 years to MJ performing BAD on the Bad Tour in Wembley, which is pretty okay. THe movie end with telling the story isn’t over.. i’d say ‘it wasnt complete’.

It is strange to see that MJ’s movie performances (The Wiz, Captain EO, Moonwalker) are completely ignored.. making the movie unable to show more of the creative MJ side we all know and love as a fan.

These are just several things i noticed and remembered..

Oh.. and pretty nice of the estate that we got to hear the first part of another Wembley night multitracked WBSS during the movie intro.. that will keep me satisfied for the next 15 years, right? THanks Branca.. lol.

Im trying not to be a rant, but these things just bugged me.. i enjoyed the movie but this experience makes the Bohemian Rhapsody and Elvis movies appear at a higher level of accuracy/entertaining/flowing through..

Ohhh at the vredits we get to hear some Triumph concert audio but a few instruments sound different.. multi’s used of instruments added? What do you think?

Rating: 6.2 out of 10
 
this is just going to be rolling off a few immediate thoughts:

- All around great performances, Jaafar did very well
- Surprised to hear Jacksons songs from the Philly albums
- Felt a bit "montage-y" throughout, but that's standard in biopics
- Hated the Thriller scene. It looked too "clean" maybe?
- I found the face CGI to be a bit... inconsistent? Off the top of my head, there's a short moment in the car on the way to the Beat It rehearsal where his nose looks far smaller than it was in the previous/next scenes

- The time skips were not very good, particularly 1971-78, considering that the departure from Motown and Michael's development during this period was so crucial to his later career.
- The lack of Randy clearly also meant a lack of Michael/Randy compositions, in particular Shake Your Body was noticeably missing.
- The entire Triumph album is glossed over as Joseph saying "a few songs I've found for you" (paraphrasing), which is pretty crazy.
- Regarding the above, the lack of Can You Feel It and Heartbreak Hotel (other than in the credits) was disappointing.

- My favourite scenes were those of Michael in the house in Encino and in the hospital after the burn, AKA not the performances, which while mostly great, made me think that I'd just rather be watching the real thing.
- Was ToysRus replaced by "Tom's Toys"? That stood out to me considering they clearly spent a lot of money to recreate a ToysRus in real life during production
- Wish Bubbles was a real chimp and not Robbie Williams/Planet of the Apes CGI
- A single line of dialogue acknowledging Rod Temperton's contributions
 
Last edited:
The question is, if people can watch 3 hour movies at the cinema, why could this film not be at least 2 hours and 35 minutes? When there is so much to cover, why cut it short? To me that does not make any sense at all and it was a fear pretty much everyone had when the running length was announced! They had a once in a lifetime chance to tell Michaels story and they did not grab with a full hand. Just like Harun has said before its a tough pill to swallow.

Michael was about perfection, so its sad they could not pull that off for him!
 
Last edited:
I've just arrived back home and here is my opinion:

Jackson 5 part was good but jumping from there to Off The Wall all of a sudden felt a bit weird. I would have liked to see a bit of The Jacksons and their creative process in the studio, it didn't need to be that deep, but at least 1 song instead of playing them in the background.
I did like the way they portray Michael, that's basically how he truly was. I did get the hints of the vitiligo in many scenes but I don't think a casual guy would actually notice it that much. It's only mentioned once and in a strange way as if it's just a headache but okaaaaaay. Also, maybe I'm wrong, there is no mention of the lupus.
I loved the scenes at Hayvenhurst, and I want a Bubbles too 😭 and I also loved the scenes at the hospital when Michael got burned. I had tears in my eyes, especially when he spoke to Bill saying he wanted to help others since he survived a very bad burn.
Colman Domingo makes you hate Joseph, he was truly ****** annoying, I really wanted to punch him.
I did say "**** off" when John Branca presented himself. I was the only one though 😅
I really love the fact that they showed his "fight" for inclusion into MTV.
I think Jaafar did a very good job, his speaking voice/accent were so good! But the editing felt a bit inconsistent. Thriller looked very weird to be honest, Human Nature with the Bad tour audio was a NO for me. (Am i the only one that finds Jaafar hands quite unsettling? Nice ass though) and I just didn't like the Bad performance. Don't get me wrong, his dancing was on point, I just felt that the audio wasn't matching and overall it just didn't click with me. Maybe I'm just VERY attached to the song. I didn't feel the rush at the end to be honest. The film is all about him wanting to go solo so going straight to the Bad era was a good decision for me.


It's not a great movie, I really do think that Michael deserved more, just a little more details that would catch your feelings a little deeper. But It's very enjoyable, it reminds people of Michael's spirit, legacy and love. It's definitely not what the critics say, they are just not happy because Michael was not the monster they wanted to potray. I can't wait for part 2 and I hope his innocence will come to light. That's all that matters.

Will go and watch it again on Saturday.
 
well, this is the first time i see a biopic on a subject i know very well. having watched other biopics and enjoyed them very much, not knowing that oh x artist didn’t sound like that during 2034 that’s from his blah blah tour 50 years later. i really couldn’t give any less of a shit about semantics like that. given what this movie had to go through, and going in knowing that it was the first half of the vision, i’m more forgiving of it.
I think this was a great introduction to Michael Jackson as a person to general audiences, who tend not to know much of anything at all. I think there are little details and things in it that give some necessary context for what could come later. i’m watching it again on friday, and i’m really excited for my friends to see it, i will definitely stress to them that it is a part one.
 
Just got back home my screening and oooooooooooh boy. I got plenty of things to talk about...


this-mfer-smh.gif


TL;DR it's not a complete disaster, but it's not perfect either. It's very entertaining (especially watching the concert recreations in IMAX), but it leaves a lot to be desired.

First off: Paris was right. I believe there are a LOT of fans that will be caught up in the big spectacle and sugar-coated aspects of this film, and as a result, they simply won't/can't view this movie with a critical eye. HOWEVER, I don't believe the movie is 100% sugar-coated either. Michael was a complicated man, and the movie portrays him that way. However, I personally think the movie didn't go deep enough into certain areas.

For example, the vitiligo is only mentioned in 2 throwaway lines and that's it. Also, Michael's reason for getting rhinoplasty in the film seemed rushed and wasn't portrayed accurately to real life.

Just like "An American Dream", this movie skips the family's transition from Motown to CBS/Epic records. Hell, Jermaine's departure is mentioned ONCE and then he magically re-appears in the group later in the movie as if nothing happened. Randy's not even a character in the movie! Neither are Rebbie or Janet. They don't show any of those 3 in the background or anything! (They could've easily done something like show a baby crib for Janet in the background during a scene in Gary, but NOPE).

If/when they make the sequel, they REALLY need to lock in and not be afraid to pull punches for the sake of pleasing the general audience. It SHOULD be a tragic sequel, because frankly, that's how Michael's journey ended.

I know there's a legal situation with the Chandler family, but I don't see why they can't just change the names (even the Flex Alexander movie did that for god's sake!) Also, I don't believe there's any legal issues with the Arvizo family, so there's NO reason to omit the 2005 trial.

This might be the ONLY possible chance to show the general public the truth about Michael and the allegations on a large scale; to establish that he was a victim of extortion and of greedy, opportunistic scumbags who only saw him as a blank check. If they can't do that in the next movie, I will have officially lost whatever little faith I have left in the Estate.
 
First of all, SPOILER ALERT FOR THE MOVIE

I just saw the film for the first time a few hours ago. I know everyone is going to have VERY strong feelings about it, but I want to focus on one subject: The real-life aspects of Michael Jackson's life that are not portrayed accurately for the sake of the film's dramatic narrative- whether they are ignored, omitted, exaggerated, or just plain false.

There are plenty of things for us fans to nit-pick and "um, actually" about. I'll try to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt: a number of these inaccuracies are minor when you look at the movie as a whole (e.g. the J5 performing "Never Can Say Goodbye" before they were signed to Motown, or The Jacksons' Victory Tour ending with "Working Day & Night" instead of "Shake Your Body (Down To The Ground). I can understand those kinds of things, because they don't have a huge impact on the film at large. Like, I'm not gonna automatically hate the whole movie just because they play the Bad Tour version of "Human Nature" during the Victory Tour scene.

However, there are two big subjects in this movie that REALLY irked me because of the major liberties that are taken for dramatic purposes:

1.) His family members & the fight for creative control
First of all, in this universe, Michael only has one sister and four older brothers. Rebbie, Randy, and Janet don't exist at all. Not even as background characters (like showing baby Janet in a crib in Gary or something). Even after the brothers depart from Motown (most of which is ignored), there's only ONE throwaway line about Jermaine being absent, but it doesn't matter because he magically re-appears for the Victory Tour.

It's ironic that a few deep cuts from The Jacksons' albums are included in the film because all of that is COMPLETELY ignored. At least "An American Dream" had the excuse of being a lower-budget Motown production that couldn't legally use most of those CBS/Epic songs, but this movie has no excuse for that. Those transitional years had a major impact on Michael. Hell, most of the film is about Michael trying to get his own personal creative freedom, but that was the whole reason the brothers left Motown in the first place!

Also, the brothers are just one-dimensional human props in this movie. They don't have any character traits or motivations of their own; they don't even seem to have any opinion on MJ's fight for control. From a screenwriting standpoint, their sole reason to exist in this film is to provide as another barrier to MJ's personal freedom, which is already represented by Joe. The filmmakers should've included a scene that shows that the brothers support their brother In real life, they all shared the same abuse from Joe, and they all eventually broke away from him as well.


2.) Michael's first rhinoplasty & vitiligo.

First, the vitiligo is only acknowledged in one short scene over, like, 2 lines of dialogue. He talks about it to one of his doctors, and to paraphrase, she says "I wish more people knew about how common it really is". That line felt so forced that it felt like a studio note directly from Branca himself. In reality, the skin disorder was a much bigger source of anxiety for MJ than the film implies. Hopefully the sequel will address it more-head on.

Next, The die-hard fans like us already know that the REAL reasons MJ got a rhinoplasty in the first place, but the general public still doesn't. This movie would have been the perfect opportunity to show that to the masses, and the filmmakers failed to do that.

A.) He broke his nose while rehearsing with his brothers and HAD to get it, but that 1st rhinoplasty was a botched job, so he had no choice but to get more work done after that. The film doesn't show any of that and I think omitting that was a mistake (after all, the general public doesn't know that!

B.) The complex he had about his appearance, mostly from bullying from his father at a young age. First of all, his acne struggle is omitted since the film time-skips that era (and to be fair, it's been addressed very well in "An American Dream", so why bother trying to one-up that?) The very sight of his father would often make Michael physically ill, and altering his nose (that he directly inherited from Joe) was a way for him to cope with that. This film doesn't really make a point of emphasizing that. There's one brief scene of Joe calling young MJ "big nose" and that's it. Michael's motivation to get the nose job would have been much better established if the bullying from his father was more throughout the movie.


Whatever man, at this point I feel like I'm just venting. The movie's gonna make a bajillion dollars anyway, so who really cares, right?

Do you guys have any thoughts about the liberties that were taken? Did they take you out of the film? Do you not care at all?
 
MJ never broke his nose. That was a lie he told Taraborelli. Katherine and La Toya confirmed he wanted a nosejob.

Are people really so gullible that they believe a young man who felt insecure about having a large nose just happened to break it, so he needed a nosejob? No, obviously MJ chose to have it done because he hated having a big nose.

Even MJ having hereditary vitiligo is hard to believe. He was bullied by Joe for having dark skin, so it's more likely that he bleached it. Vitiligo can be caused by abusing skin bleaching products.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top