Inspired by the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed "Psycho", I thought I'd give horror more of a chance. It's something I often avoid due to my squeamishness towards blood / gore and extreme violence. And the fact that comedy and music is my life though I enjoy venturing out to other genres occasionally; it reminds me why I like comedy and music so much!
Horror films that are more atmospheric and story-based suit more towards my tastes. I don't see the point in brutal violence for the sake of it, with no real character or substance. When this film started it was almost laughable how posh the characters talked. But the more it builds, the better it gets and it ends up being proper gripping stuff. It's a fantastic film and extremely well made.
Way better than I thought it was going to be. I saw it advertised on TV and it looked rather bland. But when a friend tonight suggested we watch it, I figured we might as well give it a go. I've got to admit, it's something that's never crossed my mind, perhaps coz I'm not particularly a Royalist. But it's never occurred to me that there will have been and will continue to be many gay or bi-sexual Royals who have had to hide their sexuality for public image. Same goes with politicians and arguably anyone under the spotlight. In an ideal world, nobody SHOULD have to hide who they are and this film brings up a very good point. I love the speech that Alex makes when their sexuality is exposed to the world as I agreed with every word. I won't repeat it here (my memory's not THAT good.) But watch it and if you're a half decent human being, you'd agree with it too. The acting by every actor was brilliant and believable and as other comments have stated, the chemistry between Alex and Henry (Taylor and Nicholas) was very well portrayed. Plus, I've gotta admit, it's worth watching the film just for the eye candy.
Whoever wrote this adaption must have been on something strong. I suppose I wouldn't have been an easy audience. I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl's books and the 1996 "Matilda" is a perfect film. However, I kept a very open mind watching it. (While the 1971 Wonka is perfect too, I also very much enjoyed the 2005 Depp version too. It is possible to do excellent re-makes.)
This version of "Matilda" could have been so much better if the songs weren't so forgettable and if they didn't have that strange psychedelic storytelling where Matilda predicts Miss Honey's past. That never happened in the book and it spoiled this version and made it incredibly boring.
Like so many bad films, it was very much a missed opportunity. The cast were all fantastic and played the parts how you imagine them all to be when reading the book, even if you haven't seen the original '96 version.
With the exception of our dinner lady at school, Mrs Mossop, I didn't think anybody could play Miss Trunchbull as well as Pam Ferris in the original but Emma Thompson does actually do an incredible job. That being said, it would have made more sense for the kids to be singing and dancing around the Trunchbull. I don't think the Trunchbull would be singing and dancing!
The strange writing and some of the directing of this film really let it down. The songwriting wasn't particularly great either. Some might really enjoy this film so it might be worth a watch but it's not for me. I'm sending my DVD to the charity shop.
In 2018, "Stan and Ollie" starring Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly was released and it had so much "artistic license", it didn't even resemble the real life events. It was such a missed opportunity because the acting was fantastic but the story was completely false.
So when I heard there was going to be a biopic about Elvis and his manager Colonel Parker, I became very skeptical. I prepared myself for another disappointing fictional portrayal.
I needn't have worried. As with all biopics there are occasional inaccuracies: Elvis sings "Trouble" in 1956, when it wasn't written until 1958. And Elvis fires the Colonel on stage when in reality, he fired him off stage.
But the difference is: These inaccuracies don't affect the truthful telling of his life story. The story itself is still extremely accurate. Jeff Pope could learn a lot by watching this film!
I've been reading a lot of reviews and comments on social media about the film and I've noticed that the vast majority of people who criticise it for various reasons (including "Austin Butler looks nothing like him")... all these comments are by folks who haven't seen the film yet.
I've read hundreds of books about Elvis. I've seen many documentaries about him. And I've seen a number of biopics about him. But this film is by far the best film on Elvis I've ever seen. They've done a phenomenal amount of research. The costumes, set designs, casting, crew, lighting, sound, musicians and everyone involved in this film deserve the highest praise possible.
I never thought I'd say this about a biopic but thank you Baz Luhrmann for this masterpiece.
(P.S. Although I don't particularly want to single anyone out (as all the cast were brilliant) but it'll be a missed opportunity if they don't quickly write a biopic about Little Richard, starring Alton Mason. He was amazing. It was as though they'd brought him back to life. One of the MANY highlights of the film.)
I don't know how anyone could doubt the existence of Santa when so many movies have been filmed at his factory.
But whether you're a believer, a belieber, or one of those non-believers this is a great film to watch. Very much like "The Christmas Chronicles", it's an extremely difficult film to watch for those of us who have lost any family members. In fact, this one really does tug at the heart strings and I was blubbering a lot at one point. So admittedly, it's maybe not one to watch if you've lost someone very recently.
But it is an important reminder of how to enjoy Christmas after loved ones have passed and so in that respect, it really is recommended viewing. It isn't all depressing. It is a very heartwarming film and there were moments when I was laughing out loud too.
I love watching Christmas films, regardless of what time of year it is because they're usually great stories with brilliant characters, and a reminder of how important family and friends are. This film is no exception to this. It's fantastic.
So this certainly isn't Dennis The Menace as we know him from the Beano comics. For starters he's not wearing his trademark red and black striped jumper. Also in this film, 95% of the mischief that Dennis gets up to is a genuine mistake. He's not really the mischievous brat that we know from the comics - he's just very clumsy! (So I find him more relatable in that sense.)
Speaking of appearances, the actor who plays Dennis' father in this film looks more like the geek Walter from the comic books, who Dennis always picks on! The Walter character is nowhere to be seen in this movie.
So watching it just as a stand alone film and not expecting to see any resemblance to the comic strips, it is an enjoyable movie. It is spoilt a great deal at the beginning by a young actress named Amy Sakasitz (who plays Margaret). She cannot act to save her life and I was really glad she wasn't in it for very long. Interestingly all the other actors, both kids and adults were rather good. Mason Gamble who played the lead role was brilliant. Walter Matthau and Christopher Lloyd are fantastic actors anyway so that came as no surprise.
It also comes as no surprise that it's written and produced by John Hughes because the film does have a similar feel to "Home Alone" and "Uncle Buck". And while it is an enjoyable film to watch, unlike the other two films I've mentioned, I see no need to return to it time and time again. Once is enough. But it's certainly enjoyable that once.
Wow!! Never expected this at all. I love reading children's books and I've read a couple of David Williams's books. Admittedly, I've been a bit naughty here and watched the film before reading the book (but I will get round to reading it soon.)
Never judge a book by its cover. Judging from the title and illustrations, I figured it would be comedy through and through. Similar to the books I'm used to reading and grew up with by Jeremy Strong. And most of the time that is exactly what it is. But then the story takes on a very emotional journey when the Granny is diagnosed with terminal cancer. It is certainly not an easy thing to watch (and I'm assuming it will be difficult to read too) especially if you have lost someone close to this awful illness.
The comparisons to Roald Dahl are perhaps too obvious and overused as Walliams is an extremely talented author in his own right. But if ever there was evidence that David Walliams can equal Dahl's talent in storytelling, then this is it. Not many would think to put a storyline about cancer in a children's novel but David Walliams clearly understands that books don't need to be sugarcoated for children to enjoy them. If anything, truthful and dark subjects can make the story more interesting for children and prepare them for real life.
But it isn't all doom and gloom. The film was very funny and had me laughing out loud several times and I'm sure the book will be the same. There were many nice surprises in the cast. First of all, I never expected David Walliams himself to be in it, so it was nice to see him playing the father alongside Miranda Hart playing the mother. (You can actually imagine them two being a couple! It wouldn't surprise me. They suit each other well!) Rob Brydon was in the cast as well as another Rob which I certainly didn't expect to see: Robbie Williams! That was a very nice surprise and he was very funny in it too! Not just a talented singer it seems. And of course, towards the end it was lovely to see Joanna Lumley playing The Queen.
It was a brilliant film. As I've mentioned, at times it was difficult to watch but comedy is the overriding theme here. Definitely recommended viewing. And I certainly will read the book, along with many more of David Walliams's books.
There's nothing quite like a heartwarming Christmas film to get you in the spirit at this festive time of year. They couldn't have chosen a better lead role than Tim Allen, who I already associate with Christmas since he is actually Santa!
I really liked the running gag where they couldn't work out who Marty was. I've got to say though, I was a little disappointed that we did find out who he was eventually. For me, it would have been funnier had we never got to find out. But I suppose it brings it together to make sense.
The cast were brilliant, funny but realistic. They could perform visual comedy and slapstick very well. Unfortunately, there was too much focus pulling in the camera work which made it look ridiculous and distracting. But that's about the only downside to the movie.
One fantastic part of the movie is when they start singing an Eddie Cochran song "C'mon Everybody". Eddie Cochran is the bees-knees of music and I remember being pleasantly surprised at this when I saw this film in the cinema. (I've always been a huge Cochran fan.)
Definitely worth a watch and I'll probably watch it every year from now on.
It's only 77 days to go 'til the big day!! So Merry Christmas everyone!
This film couldn't be more up my street if it tried! Hilarious slapstick and visual comedy throughout and a story based on animals outwitting humans. In this case the animal is a mouse and more damage gets done to the humans while the mouse gets off Scott free! There is a clear and obvious inspiration from my favourite comedy team Laurel and Hardy. In one scene, Ernie even mimics Oliver Hardy's famous tie twiddle. It's a fandabbydozy film. I love it.
When a re-make of a film is done the natural thing for anyone to do is to compare it and unfortunately I'm going to have to do that a little to make my points. But I genuinely believe that more people would have enjoyed this film so much better, if the 1971 Gene Wilder film hadn't already been made. This 2005 adaption has just as much heart, the story is beautifully told and every member of the cast were absolutely spot on with the acting. As a huge Roald Dahl fan myself who has read the book many times over the years, I believe Johnny Depp captures the essence of Willy Wonka more accurately than Gene Wilder. Wilder was wonderful and did his own classic take on it but Johnny Depp makes him appear a lot more eccentric - much like he was in the original story.
The '71 version certainly has better music which helps justify its status as the classic adaption of the film which everyone loves. "Pure Imagination" is one of my favourite songs ever recorded and "The Candy Man" is also a gem. (These songs were written by one of my favourite singers, Anthony Newley along with Leslie Bricusse.)
One of the few flaws in the 2005 adaption is the fact that the music (particularly the Oompa Loompa singing voices) sounds very robotic and they've clearly tried to put in multiple styles of music. Arguably you could say that this fits in with the eccentric nature of the Willy Wonka character but I think it's because of this one minor issue why it falls short of becoming the classic film it should be. It doesn't have the charm of "Pure Imagination". Although it has to be said, that Willy Wonka is not meant to be charming! Quite rightly, he doesn't particularly like people in general. That was a major point lost on Gene Wilder. And therefore perhaps charming songs would be too wholesome.
The lyrics for the Oompa Loompa songs in the 2005 adaption were written by Roald Dahl as they're taken from the book and therefore once again, more true to the original story.
Unlike so many modern films, the camera work just tells the story! And that's wonderful because I'm SO SICK of seeing focus pulls for no apparent reason! I'm so sick of camera guys trying to show off! The only obvious focus pull I can remember in this film is when Wonka notices a grey hair in the barber scene. And that's good. A camera should go unnoticed. So for any camera crew reading this - just set the focus and leave it at that!!!! It's the story and acting we should be concentrating on. Stop showing off! They could pull focus back in the early 1900s but they didn't because they knew how to tell stories! It's nothing new. It doesn't make the film any better. It's distracting. SO STOP IT!!!!
All in all, this film is just as good as the '71 adaption and it's certainly more true to the book. Roald Dahl disowned the Gene Wilder version. We can't predict what he would have thought of this adaption but Johnny Depp certainly plays Wonka how I've always imagined him when reading the book. And as I've previously said, each member of the cast is outstanding. The acting is superb. There isn't a weak link among them. Tim Burton should be proud. Thank you for making such a wonderful film that I've already watched many times and will continue to see time and time again.
This was the first film I ever saw at the cinema. The fact that it was released in 1995 surprised me because I was only 2 years old when I saw it. Yet I remember seeing it for the first time vividly. I remember what coat I was wearing and Mum telling me to "take it off or you won't feel the benefit."
I remember there was one sad moment in the film which I cried at and that must have been when the dogs attacked the sheep and it dies. After watching it for a second time today on Netflix (I can be very modern at times!) I began to realise that my love and affection for animals and veggie views all stem from this film. I may have been only 2 but this film made me aware that some animals are on farms only to be eaten and throughout all my early life, I apparently said to my parents "What animal am I eating now?"
When I was 9 or 10 years old, I used to read a few books by Dick King-Smith, the writer of "The Sheep Pig" which this film was based on. And I have recently ordered some more books by the author to read again, including this one.
Despite the tragic sheep death scene I really enjoyed this film. While it is always a tragedy to know the eventual fate of farm animals, something which I can never turn a blind eye to, I genuinely found it a heartwarming and at times quite a funny film. I will look forward to jumping back through the pages of Dick King-Smith's work and I will definitely buy this film on DVD (perhaps not always so modern) because it is one I will happily watch many times. I can't recommend it enough.
What's not to love? Cute guys naked throughout! Happy days!
As well as the obvious eye candy, it was beautiful to watch just for the lighting, music and incredible costumes as well as clever editing and props. I'm still not entirely sure what the storyline was - Did it even need a storyline? Perhaps not. It was a fantastic experience that I will happily sit through time and time again.
I can forgive people for believing this film if they just watch it and do no further research into the subject. But this is clearly just another money-grab and the many mistakes and inconsistencies have proven that.
Michael Jackson was autistic and couldn't always see when devious people were just using him for their own financial gain. He was too trusting of everyone. Anybody and everyone could walk into Neverland whether Michael was there or not and demand food from his cooks, play on the fairground rides, run riot round the mansions, or even sleep in his bed.
Being autistic, one of his obsessions was all things Disney. Even before he bought Neverland, for his 24th Birthday, he hired the original voice actress for Snow White, Adriana Caselotti, along with the seven actors who dressed as the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland to come to his house and serenade him to sleep.
Another time, Michael was invited to the White House. When he arrived, he walked into a conference room and he saw many people dressed in suits ready to greet him. This scared him and he run into the library in the White House and locked himself in the toilets and wouldn't come out until they had all gone. This way of dealing with uncomfortable situations is common among people who are autistic. Some argue he wasn't autistic because in early interviews he has good eye contact. But another pop star, Mika, has also been diagnosed with autism, and he shows excellent eye contact and appears to be very comfortable in interviews.
Macaulay Culkin once stated that Michael "has never been great at explaining himself," which is why he could never understand the reaction he got when he stated on camera that kids have slept in his room. He did clarify that the kids slept on the bed and he often slept on the floor. And as Culkin pointed out: "I don't think you understand, Michael's bedroom is like two stories, and has three bathrooms." It was more like sharing a house than a bedroom.
Contradicting this mockumentary, many people who were there have verified that on these famous "sleepovers", there were always multiple people there including, Macaulay Culkin, Keiran Culkin, Brett Barnes, Natalie Barrett, Corey Feldman, Shanice Wilson, Aaron Carter, Omer Bhatti, Keira Chaplin, Michael Jackson's family members such as Taj and Brandi Jackson, as well as Michael Jackson's kids Prince, Paris and Bigi. As well as many, many more.
So where did it all go wrong?
In 1993, a guy named Evan Chandler told Michael that if he doesn't pay him $20 million, then he will go to newspapers claiming that Michael had molested his son, Jordie Chandler. Evan kept on pestering him for 6 months about this but Michael kept refusing until his attorney at the time stated that if Michael didn't pay, then he'd have to go to court and cancel his worldwide tour, losing him at least $100 million. Therefore his attorney arranged for Michael's insurance company to pay the $20 million.
(All artists have insurance companies because they are sued all the time. If they didn't pay people off then they'd end up in court every day of their life. The song "Billie Jean" is about a woman trying to sue him, claiming that he’s the father of her son.)
Michael then counter-sued the Chandler family for extortion/blackmail.
Despite many police raids round Neverland and the FBI getting involved, they couldn't find any evidence for a criminal trial. But when it came out in the newspapers that Michael had "payed off" an accuser for child sexual abuse, this sent out a message to the world: "Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson?"
In 2003, a guy called Martin Bashir released a controversial documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson". He tricked Michael by saying that it was going to revive his reputation after the 1993 allegations. The reality was that Martin Bashir was just as harsh as the tabloid media and mocked Michael's autism and eccentric behaviour by calling him "disturbing". Believing Martin Bashir to be a decent journalist, Michael really opens up to him, showing him the tree that he often climbed to write his songs. Behind the scenes footage shows that Bashir encouraged Michael and couldn't praise him enough. Michael happily went along with him. But then Martin Bashir later recorded seriously judgemental commentary for the documentary. He basically used Michael like a monkey in a zoo.
To Michael, Martin Bashir told him that he wanted to show the audience all the charity work he does for kids and so Martin himself arranged the most controversial scene in the whole documentary, in which Michael is sat next to a surviving cancer patient, Gavin Arvizo, and Martin is asking Michael about the allegations and about the sleepovers. Michael does admit to having many people (both kids and adults) sleep at Neverland and in his bedroom, but does specify that it's not just him and another kid. It's "many, many children" and that it's "not sexual." He also does specify that the kids sleep in the bed, while he sleeps on the floor. (Verified by Michael's adult friend, Frank Cascio who was at all the sleepovers along with the many kids and parents who joined them.)
However it was those scenes in the film that made District Attorney Tom Sneddon believe he could finally prosecute Michael Jackson. When the documentary was released, the world's media went into uproar and to make matters worse, Gavin Arvizo who defended Michael in the documentary received a visit from Evan Chandler's lawyer, specifying how much money they could make if they claimed Michael had molested him.
The police arrested Michael and he went through a 5 month trial in 2005. This is when Wade Robson (from "Leaving Neverland") defended Michael. If Michael really had been molesting Wade Robson all those years, then he took a HUGE risk putting him first on the stand to defend him in the trial! Doesn't make much sense to me.
But this trial wasn't the Wade Robson Show, as he made out in "Leaving Neverland"... There were many others who defended Michael too, including Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker all of whom still defend him today.
But as Michael's new attorney, Tom Mesereau pointed out, he didn't really need a defence team anyway because the prosecution side made themselves look ridiculous! The 8 thousand page court transcript of the trial is online for you to read. It may take some time but it's worth it for comedy purposes. I laughed out loud several times at what they were trying to claim and how they contradicted themselves. (There is also a book about the court case by Aphrodite Jones that's worth a read too.)
Gavin Arvizo first claimed to a child protection officer that he had been molested before the Martin Bashir documentary... and when the outtake footage was shown in court, he then claimed he was molested just AFTER the documentary was released.... and then when further footage was shown of the Arvizo family defending Michael after the documentary was released, Gavin changed the molestation date again to months after the documentary.
It was also proved in court that Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain even before he met Michael Jackson. He tried to claim that his mother was raped by a security guard at a department store. The CCTV cameras proved that he was lying. The Arvizo family had quite a history of lying for financial gain. They had even told many celebrities that he couldn't afford the treatment for his cancer, when in fact, his father's insurance covered all costs. But they fooled many celebrities and attained thousands of dollars from them.
The Arvizo family also tried to claim in court that Michael had kidnapped the whole family and took them to Miami and held them hostage. The dates of plane payments and witnesses proved that this was also untrue.
Plus many people who were on the prosecution's side, including June Chandler, the mother of Jordie, actually said more to defend Michael than anyone. June even claimed that she always thought that Evan Chandler was in it for the money.
So Michael was already proved innocent of all these false claims even before Wade Robson took the stand.
After 5 months, the jury found Michael: Not Guilty on all charges.
When Michael passed away in 2009, Wade Robson wrote this tribute to a friend via email:
"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
In 2011, Wade attempted to gain employment as the lead choreographer for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production. He was rejected.
His career in his words began to "crumble."
In 2012, heavily in debt, he tried to sell a book to publishers claiming he had been abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher agreed to publish it.
In 2013, he filed a civil lawsuit against the Jackson estate for up to $1.6 billion dollars. A court dismissed his claims in 2017 on the grounds that there were too many inconsistencies and a judge actually stated that “no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.”
In 2019, "Leaving Neverland" is released but they claim "It's not about the money".
One thing Wade Robson conveniently forgets to mention in the film is the fact that he was dating Michael Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson for seven years and it was Michael who suggested they date. But that doesn't fit in with the story that Michael wanted him to stay away from girls because they were "in a relationship”.
In “Leaving Neverland”, Wade Robson claims that Michael Jackson was molesting him ’til he was 14 and then lost interest because he became too old for him and so he replaced him with Macauley Culkin… Culkin is two years older than Wade Robson so that doesn’t make much sense!
Arguably the most laughable moment in the mockumentary is when James Safechuck pulls out a ring and tries to claim that Michael had done a mock wedding ceremony where they exchanged vows to each other. He then placed the ring on his finger. Why would a child’s ring fit so well on an adult’s finger?
Safechuck was very clear in the documentary that the abuse stopped when he was 14. He was very specific about that - Watch the documentary again to see how specific he was. However he also claimed that he had been abused several times in a train station built on the Neverland premises.
After doing some research, Mike Smallcombe proved that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when James Safechuck was 16. Even the director of “Leaving Neverland” had to admit that Safechuck had made an error and when “Leaving Neverland” was made available for streaming, the train station error had been mysteriously edited out!
Time travelling errors seem to be a Safechuck family trait. James’s mother claims in the mockumentary that when Michael Jackson died in 2009 she celebrated by dancing saying “he can’t hurt any more children.” In 2012 however she was following Michael Jackson fan pages on Twitter and sharing his music. In 2013, she claimed she had only just found out about the abuse.
Many argue “we’ll never know what really went on” and that can be said for both in favour or against Michael. But in response, I’d say you can tell when someone is lying. Dan Reed, the director, had admitted that it’s a one-sided film and that he never attempted to interview anyone who was willing to defend Michael (including Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker.)
Four people have accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. 2 in his lifetime and now 2 after his death. 3 out of those 4 people (Evan Chandler, Robson and Safechuck) have been fully grown adults attempting to sue Michael or his estate for millions. The one child that accused him, Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain.
I can forgive people for believing this film if they just watch it and do no further research into the subject. But this is clearly just another money-grab and the many mistakes and inconsistencies have proven that.
Michael Jackson was autistic and couldn't always see when devious people were just using him for their own financial gain. He was too trusting of everyone. Anybody and everyone could walk into Neverland whether Michael was there or not and demand food from his cooks, play on the fairground rides, run riot round the mansions, or even sleep in his bed.
Being autistic, one of his obsessions was all things Disney. Even before he bought Neverland, for his 24th Birthday, he hired the original voice actress for Snow White, Adriana Caselotti, along with the seven actors who dressed as the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland to come to his house and serenade him to sleep.
Another time, Michael was invited to the White House. When he arrived, he walked into a conference room and he saw many people dressed in suits ready to greet him. This scared him and he run into the library in the White House and locked himself in the toilets and wouldn't come out until they had all gone. This way of dealing with uncomfortable situations is common among people who are autistic. Some argue he wasn't autistic because in early interviews he has good eye contact. But another pop star, Mika, has also been diagnosed with autism, and he shows excellent eye contact and appears to be very comfortable in interviews.
Macaulay Culkin once stated that Michael "has never been great at explaining himself," which is why he could never understand the reaction he got when he stated on camera that kids have slept in his room. He did clarify that the kids slept on the bed and he often slept on the floor. And as Culkin pointed out: "I don't think you understand, Michael's bedroom is like two stories, and has three bathrooms." It was more like sharing a house than a bedroom.
Contradicting this mockumentary, many people who were there have verified that on these famous "sleepovers", there were always multiple people there including, Macaulay Culkin, Keiran Culkin, Brett Barnes, Natalie Barrett, Corey Feldman, Shanice Wilson, Aaron Carter, Omer Bhatti, Keira Chaplin, Michael Jackson's family members such as Taj and Brandi Jackson, as well as Michael Jackson's kids Prince, Paris and Bigi. As well as many, many more.
So where did it all go wrong?
In 1993, a guy named Evan Chandler told Michael that if he doesn't pay him $20 million, then he will go to newspapers claiming that Michael had molested his son, Jordie Chandler. Evan kept on pestering him for 6 months about this but Michael kept refusing until his attorney at the time stated that if Michael didn't pay, then he'd have to go to court and cancel his worldwide tour, losing him at least $100 million. Therefore his attorney arranged for Michael's insurance company to pay the $20 million.
(All artists have insurance companies because they are sued all the time. If they didn't pay people off then they'd end up in court every day of their life. The song "Billie Jean" is about a woman trying to sue him, claiming that he’s the father of her son.)
Michael then counter-sued the Chandler family for extortion/blackmail.
Despite many police raids round Neverland and the FBI getting involved, they couldn't find any evidence for a criminal trial. But when it came out in the newspapers that Michael had "payed off" an accuser for child sexual abuse, this sent out a message to the world: "Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson?"
In 2003, a guy called Martin Bashir released a controversial documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson". He tricked Michael by saying that it was going to revive his reputation after the 1993 allegations. The reality was that Martin Bashir was just as harsh as the tabloid media and mocked Michael's autism and eccentric behaviour by calling him "disturbing". Believing Martin Bashir to be a decent journalist, Michael really opens up to him, showing him the tree that he often climbed to write his songs. Behind the scenes footage shows that Bashir encouraged Michael and couldn't praise him enough. Michael happily went along with him. But then Martin Bashir later recorded seriously judgemental commentary for the documentary. He basically used Michael like a monkey in a zoo.
To Michael, Martin Bashir told him that he wanted to show the audience all the charity work he does for kids and so Martin himself arranged the most controversial scene in the whole documentary, in which Michael is sat next to a surviving cancer patient, Gavin Arvizo, and Martin is asking Michael about the allegations and about the sleepovers. Michael does admit to having many people (both kids and adults) sleep at Neverland and in his bedroom, but does specify that it's not just him and another kid. It's "many, many children" and that it's "not sexual." He also does specify that the kids sleep in the bed, while he sleeps on the floor. (Verified by Michael's adult friend, Frank Cascio who was at all the sleepovers along with the many kids and parents who joined them.)
However it was those scenes in the film that made District Attorney Tom Sneddon believe he could finally prosecute Michael Jackson. When the documentary was released, the world's media went into uproar and to make matters worse, Gavin Arvizo who defended Michael in the documentary received a visit from Evan Chandler's lawyer, specifying how much money they could make if they claimed Michael had molested him.
The police arrested Michael and he went through a 5 month trial in 2005. This is when Wade Robson (from "Leaving Neverland") defended Michael. If Michael really had been molesting Wade Robson all those years, then he took a HUGE risk putting him first on the stand to defend him in the trial! Doesn't make much sense to me.
But this trial wasn't the Wade Robson Show, as he made out in "Leaving Neverland"... There were many others who defended Michael too, including Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker all of whom still defend him today.
But as Michael's new attorney, Tom Mesereau pointed out, he didn't really need a defence team anyway because the prosecution side made themselves look ridiculous! The 8 thousand page court transcript of the trial is online for you to read. It may take some time but it's worth it for comedy purposes. I laughed out loud several times at what they were trying to claim and how they contradicted themselves. (There is also a book about the court case by Aphrodite Jones that's worth a read too.)
Gavin Arvizo first claimed to a child protection officer that he had been molested before the Martin Bashir documentary... and when the outtake footage was shown in court, he then claimed he was molested just AFTER the documentary was released.... and then when further footage was shown of the Arvizo family defending Michael after the documentary was released, Gavin changed the molestation date again to months after the documentary.
It was also proved in court that Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain even before he met Michael Jackson. He tried to claim that his mother was raped by a security guard at a department store. The CCTV cameras proved that he was lying. The Arvizo family had quite a history of lying for financial gain. They had even told many celebrities that he couldn't afford the treatment for his cancer, when in fact, his father's insurance covered all costs. But they fooled many celebrities and attained thousands of dollars from them.
The Arvizo family also tried to claim in court that Michael had kidnapped the whole family and took them to Miami and held them hostage. The dates of plane payments and witnesses proved that this was also untrue.
Plus many people who were on the prosecution's side, including June Chandler, the mother of Jordie, actually said more to defend Michael than anyone. June even claimed that she always thought that Evan Chandler was in it for the money.
So Michael was already proved innocent of all these false claims even before Wade Robson took the stand.
After 5 months, the jury found Michael: Not Guilty on all charges.
When Michael passed away in 2009, Wade Robson wrote this tribute to a friend via email:
"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
In 2011, Wade attempted to gain employment as the lead choreographer for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production. He was rejected.
His career in his words began to "crumble."
In 2012, heavily in debt, he tried to sell a book to publishers claiming he had been abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher agreed to publish it.
In 2013, he filed a civil lawsuit against the Jackson estate for up to $1.6 billion dollars. A court dismissed his claims in 2017 on the grounds that there were too many inconsistencies and a judge actually stated that “no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.”
In 2019, "Leaving Neverland" is released but they claim "It's not about the money".
One thing Wade Robson conveniently forgets to mention in the film is the fact that he was dating Michael Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson for seven years and it was Michael who suggested they date. But that doesn't fit in with the story that Michael wanted him to stay away from girls because they were "in a relationship”.
In “Leaving Neverland”, Wade Robson claims that Michael Jackson was molesting him ’til he was 14 and then lost interest because he became too old for him and so he replaced him with Macauley Culkin… Culkin is two years older than Wade Robson so that doesn’t make much sense!
Arguably the most laughable moment in the mockumentary is when James Safechuck pulls out a ring and tries to claim that Michael had done a mock wedding ceremony where they exchanged vows to each other. He then placed the ring on his finger. Why would a child’s ring fit so well on an adult’s finger?
Safechuck was very clear in the documentary that the abuse stopped when he was 14. He was very specific about that - Watch the documentary again to see how specific he was. However he also claimed that he had been abused several times in a train station built on the Neverland premises.
After doing some research, Mike Smallcombe proved that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when James Safechuck was 16. Even the director of “Leaving Neverland” had to admit that Safechuck had made an error and when “Leaving Neverland” was made available for streaming, the train station error had been mysteriously edited out!
Time travelling errors seem to be a Safechuck family trait. Jame’s mother claims in the mockumentary that when Michael Jackson died in 2009 she celebrated by dancing saying “he can’t hurt any more children.” In 2012 however she was following Michael Jackson fan pages on Twitter and sharing his music. In 2013, she claimed she had only just found out about the abuse.
Many argue “we’ll never know what really went on” and that can be said for both in favour or against Michael. But in response, I’d say you can tell when someone is lying. Dan Reed, the director, had admitted that it’s a one-sided film and that he never attempted to interview anyone who was willing to defend Michael (including Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker.)
Four people have accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. 2 in his lifetime and now 2 after his death. 3 out of those 4 people (Evan Chandler, Robson and Safechuck) have been fully grown adults attempting to sue Michael or his estate for millions. The one child that accused him, Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain.
It may not be his best film but no film with Jim Carrey in is a bad film. I really enjoyed it. A guy who says no to everything decides to lead a more upbeat and positive life by saying Yes to everything.... Literally EVERYTHING. It changes his life positively for a while but as with anything done by extreme, it doesn't work out. It's good to have a bit of Yes and No in your life. I would say Yes to this film.
From start to finish, this film is dripping with 80s and that's not a bad thing at all. There's a bit of comedy, and a bit of sci-fi, and a bit of romance. The music is excellent. Camera work is spot on. The acting is great - rather cheesy but that's part of the 80s charm. I loved it!
Reminded me of "Dumb and Dumber" as it was similar kind of humour. I really enjoyed it. I thought the acting was great. Very exaggerated but not too over the top. It had a simple and decent storyline which is always a good sign for a comedy - Nothing too complicated. I thought parts of it were a little strange, like the space cult people but they were meant to be strange. Overall, I thought it was brilliant.
Maybe I'm a soppy sod, but you can't beat a nice love story with a touch of humour. I don't enjoy all Rom-Coms, but when they're well written and extremely well acted and keep you interested throughout (even if it's a predictable happy ending) then simplicity always works. It was a great film.
A fairly enjoyable film but a bit slow in places and I didn't always feel the Blake Cooper's acting was always convincing. However most of the acting was fine and it was well written. It's a bit bland and nothing really exciting but as a light-hearted watch, it's fine.
The soundtrack was great and was probably the best part of the film. The editing was spot on (though it did provide too many "artistic" type shots that weren't necessary) as these films often do! The camera work was appropriate though.
As with all films about time travel it can be a little confusing in places but it makes sense by the end of it. (Just about.) Great story with some very talented actors and very well written, filmed and edited. We all wish we could change some things in the past but it's better to live for today. That's why I'm not gonna spend too much time on this review because I've only got 7 hours left of today and I don't wanna spend the whole day writing a review about a film I watched a week ago when I could be living for today. Enjoy the film! TTFN.
A rather enjoyable film which was all about "Who done it?" Very much mysterious and remained so right 'til the end when they presented us with three possible endings leaving us still puzzled about what happens. The storyline reminded me of the 1930 film "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case". Definitely worth a watch.
With so many excellent actors in this film, my hopes were raised. It didn't take long before they were dashed and obliterated completely. I don't mind comedies that are not politically correct as long as they are funny. However when they took the Mickey out of disabled people in the way that they did it was just pure evil and not remotely funny. Comedy often mocks people, I understand that. Mocking people for comedy purposes is fine but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. This film seemed to go out of its way to be shocking but forgot to be funny. Perhaps the most shocking thing about it is why so many great actors happily agreed to be in it. Makes you think they were all thrown into a forest and told to get on with it....
It's got Alex Lawther in it. What more reason do you need to watch it? He is a brilliant actor anyway but my respect for him has shot through the roof now that I've seen him performing pure comedy. He's extremely talented.
The whole film is a light-hearted love story that is easy to watch. The acting is brilliant. The story isn't anything new but it's still very well written. Aside from "Goodbye Christopher Robin", I think this is my favourite Alex Lawther film that I've seen so far. I had to take off one point though coz the ending wasn't particularly happy - I was hoping he'd come and marry me, but it just didn't happen. So Alex, if you're reading this somewhere, I am still waiting....
I love Spiderman and this film is a great example of why. Even in the most action-packed scenes they always make room for plenty of comedy. As much as everyone loves Tobey, Tom Holland has earned his crown as the best Spiderman. (In my humble opinion.)
I had to knock a point off because be warned.... There is a horrifying moment when a guitar is smashed to bits. Thankfully as it's an animation film it wasn't a real guitar but it is still quite distressing.
Other than that, it is a brilliant film that demonstrates how important music is. A wonderful message. Quite funny in places too.
Nothing new here. A typical American Sports film where an unlikely team wins and the evil ones get what's coming to them. Even though I'd never seen the film before I feel like I've seen the storyline so many times and it was very predictable. But predictability never stops it from being an enjoyable film and there were funny moments.
Not all drugs are bad. I'm addicted to music and comedy and can quite happily get high when climbing a tree. (I'm also addicted to Coca-Cola, which is quite bad actually.) We all have a real addiction of some kind whether it's bad for you or good for you; so please don't be judgemental on those who have taken the path of illegal drugs or alcohol. Truth be told, they're no different from anyone else. They are simply searching for something to provide them with inner-peace and happiness. This film demonstrates though that going down the path of hard drugs can be extremely self destructive and can harm everyone around you. It's certainly not a light-hearted film or an easy watch but it's very real and truthful. There is no easy answer for those who are addicted because I know how difficult addiction can be. I wish everyone could find true happiness from music and comedy. It would be a lot less harmful.
Not quite sure where to place this one. I didn't realise when watching it that it was an adaption from what was originally a ballet, so it felt like it should be a musical and yet nobody sings in it. It did have an influence from "Alice In Wonderland", and that aspect won my approval. It also had at least one or two funny moment so it was rather enjoyable but not something I'd be eager to watch again.
Absolutely amazing!! The best new film I've seen all year. This film really had me in stitches of laughter to the point where I didn't think I'd be able to stop. I was pleasantly surprised by this film because I was told that it was a superhero film with comedy in it. With the exception of Spiderman, I'm not really into Superhero films or any kind of action film. I've watched many but they're not usually my thing. But this had it all - excellent storytelling that touched your heart, superb comedy that genuinely makes you laugh out loud on multiple occasions and loveable characters. It kept my gripped from start to finish. Couldn't recommend this more!
Certainly not the best effort from Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle. There are some great funny moments but few and far between. The settings really didn't help. On the whole it's difficult to get too many gags sat in a theatre. (Though Chaplin's "A Night In The Show" proves that statement wrong!) Contrary to popular belief, there are many great Keystone films, but sadly, this isn't one of them.