gothamite27
I only discovered this film after searching through Wikipedia for information on Michael Jackson (which is most certainly what millions of others are doing, in the wake of his highly publicized death).The film is an exploration, not of Michael Joseph Jackson's life, but of his fame; particularly following the Earth-shattering success of 'Thriller'. It mostly skims over these years (but then, just about everything in the film feels 'skimmed over'), but there are some interesting developments, such as the beginning of Michael's supposed troubles with the vitiligo disease as well as the infamous Pepsi Cola accident, where he was badly burned (this serves as a segue into Jackson's near-obsession with cosmetic surgery).The majority of this biopic is based in the 1990s and portrays in brief, the countless occasions where the media clashed with Michael Jackson, particularly the child-abuse allegations of 1993. His friendship with Liz Taylor is decently established (although the actress is sub-par) and throughout the film, Michael's kinship with someone by the name of 'Bobby' (who I can only assume is his bodyguard or housekeeper or something) is probably the highlight of the film (along with something that I shall mention later on in the review). Michael's relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Rowe, the two wives he had in the 90s are explored with the former being an impressive recount (if slightly historically inaccurate, if accounts from Presley herself are to be believed) and the latter being a pathetic footnote. The film concludes with Michael being accused once more of child abuse, and choosing to fight the charges (rather than trying to avoid them, as he did in 1993).This is not a very well-made biopic. It is not 'Walk the Line' or 'Ray' and I would hesitate to say that it is even as good as TV movie-biopics such as 'The David Cassidy Story'. It employs very 'hip' directorial methods, that one would expect from CSI and other such programming. The acting ranges from above-average (Flex Alexander is quite good) to absolutely dire (the actress who played Janet). The most noteworthy criticism is the make-up, which was uncomfortably off throughout the film. The film makes some efforts to show Jackson's transition from the fresh-faced, very black young man of 'Thriller' to the tanned (but still obviously African American) 27-year-old of the 'Bad' era to the ghost-faced Jackson of the 1990s. For some reason, the film awkwardly chooses to keep Flex Alexander in the 'Bad'-era makeup throughout most of the second act of the film, throughout years where Jackson was very obviously not black (such as his marriage to Presley, for example). This takes viewers who are even only slightly somewhat familiar with the man's history out of the experience. It makes little sense when Flex Alexander goes from being a black man with some chalk lightly pasted on his face to being a very, very white man with features that have been utterly, surgically overhauled.In all honesty however, the film has some very interesting ideas about Jackson and its ending is almost a saving grace in how it ties together two of the most recurring themes of the film: Michael's fear of failure (in the eyes of his father and the media) and his undying love and respect for his fans, the people who would never leave him. It is clear that the ending was probably the one very clear idea the writers and director had while making this very obviously rushed, low-budget film and it stands out as a noteworthy highlight for a fairly mediocre film.In conclusion, fans of Jackson could do worse than to watch this biopic, particularly those who mourn his passing. Taken with a pinch of salt, this is a fairly decent film with interesting ideas.
darkmanishere990
Here is a ground rule to keep in mind before watching this movie. Michael didn't lend his music to this film. With that said, I will now continue. If this movie is based all on tabloids, then that is the writer's fault. That isn't the fault of the actors. However, this film, with source material aside, I thought was very entertaining. I loved the cast. I loved Flex as MJ. Flex did a good job with the script he was given. He really brought Michael to life in certain scenes. Second of all, I loved whoever played Ziggy and Bobby. I think Ziggy was roughly based on Frank DiLeo and I think Bobby was based on Bill Bray. Is there anyone else can back this up? None the less, both were talented actors, who played their roles greatly. I loved it when Ziggy and Bobby were both in Neverland and both thrilled about Michael having his own place. It was a priceless scene. The maids help up this sign that said, "Welcome to Neverland" and Ziggy help up a sign also, saying, "Finally." I also liked the women who played, Elizabeth Taylor and Lisa Marie Presley and Janet Jackson. (All though the woman who played Janet, didn't look like her very much, she was good in her role, I thought.) I also thought as far as the people who played Elizabeth Taylor and Lisa Marie Presley, were both good in their roles. I think the movie did a good job at showing what good friends Michael and Elizabeth Taylor are. She was REALLY there for him during all the 93 drama, and this film totally shows that. I think the woman who played Debbie Rowe was VERY pretty. I also LOVED the sets used in this movie. I know it may have looked cheap compared to Michael's real pad, and I agree with that. However, that is like comparing a fine steak to fast food. If you view the sets without the notions of what they should look like, they looked very amazing. They also served the purpose. I thought especially, the inside of Neverland looked, what I would picture it looking like. It had all these statues of angels and animals, like I picture MJ probably having in his real home. They also had the mannequins, like MJ is known for having. The costumes were also very well done. I thought this movie did an awesome job of capturing and reproducing as best they could, some of the costumes Michael really wears. I thought the script was well written. I know some had beef with it skipping from point to point, but, I imagine that this way is the best organized way to have made this movie. Michael has had a very complex life thus far. He has had his share of amazing times but also more then his share of drama and sadness. I think this movie shows the real events, as I imagine, they probably did happen, in some form. Some also probably have beef with not enough time showing him in The Jackson Five, however, I think as an adult he is a better entertainer and much more interesting for the audience's sake. (Keep in mind, I doubt this movie was made to please Michael Jackson fans only.) Back to the film, I imagine this film was produced to take a glimpse at Michael's adult life this far. I also enjoyed from an editing/ production point of view, when it would show video clips of "the real Michael." I believe it only happened once. It happened when they used footage of the "real life Michael" holding his son over the balcony. Then it would cut back to the actor. It also showed a few pictures (if you look REALLY closely) on the child's wall, in the scene when Michael visits the boy's home, of "the real Michael." However, as a fan, I feel it was morally wrong for them to use,"the real Michael" in any of these scenes, if Michael said he didn't want to lend his music, they shouldn't have used any footage of him at all. I know Michael was down on this movie, as were most of his supporters, but I thought this movie was pretty fair and balanced. It really tried to show Michael in a positive light, I think. It was pretty clear, Michael was innocent in this movie. It was also clear, the script painted the boy's father out to be a money grubbing con. A)In the film, he asked Michael, "Have you had a chance to read my screen-play?" To which Michael, said no. B)The boy's father in the film also smiled at the boy and said, "Tell me more about these sleep overs." As though in his mind, he was already plotting this evil plan. The only problem I had with this film, was the sad ending. I thought the ending was so depressing. I know that it tried to be positive about the future, but the fact is, the future is depressing for The real life Michael Jackson. He is currently in for the fight of his life. I can't imagine him surviving jail. The thought of him in jail makes me sick to my stomach. I hope he gets an innocent verdict of all charges. (Then maybe they could update this film or make a sequel.) I wished this movie would have came out around the time "Invincible" was released. Or the week that it was Number One all over the world, including America! That way, it could have had a much happier ending. I'm a sucker for happy endings. I thought this movie made itself to be "Pro Michael" about 85% of the time. If you want 100% "Pro Michael" film, I suggest viewing, once again, "Jacksons: An American Dream." Overall, for me, This film gets 8.8 out of 10 for me. I give it a B+.
