This review sucketh.

This review sucketh because the reviewer sucketh the penith!!! What a worthless close minded waste of space human being

I think it's a hilarious review. And utterly true. Masses have anointed Michael Jackson as the virtual second coming of Christ and the so-called "Prince Of Pop." While it's undeniable he was a talent, he--and nobody else in showbiz--is worthy of such fervent worship. I wouldn't see this movie if it were playing out in the back yard.

Sense of humour failure from those two, then! What is wrong with a little mocking of all the hype that's surrounded Michael Jackson since his death?

*gasp*! MaryAnn! You have an evil, parellel universe self! And, she's an Idiot!

I was amused. I think maybe she could have done this for half the review, then reverted back to "normal" speak for the rest.
I totally get how this will offend the Michael faithful, though.
I loved his music as a kid, but gave up on him when he got all loony.

This is the single most irritating review I've ever read half of in my life. Utterly silly and ineffective.

I thought the movie pretty much showed what everyone should already known by now. Michael really cared about his live show and would throw everything he had into it. Michael took what Elvis started in the 70's and took it to a whole new level and the movie shows that this just doesnt happen, it takes a lot of work. Is this the Last Waltz, no but it doesnt mean that Mary Ann's tone of "I'm better than you because I am not a Michael Jackson fan" just shows her own weakness of having to resort to humor and satire when she doesnt have a real point to make other than I dont like this person that did this in this movie.

I think it's interesting that the comments have kind of proved your point...

Am I the only one that noticed that MaryAnn *did* recommend this movie to MJ fans?

Humor and satire are not a last resort. They're essential to the writing of anyone with an ounce of intelligence and wit.

And thy author shall be persecuted for her review. But fear not! For time passes quickly in cyberspace.

(ps Fun review ^_^)

Maybe they were implying that this was going on while the review was being written? I could see that impacting the quality, or at least number of typos. Though I don't notice this effect so I question their thesis.

You know there's no way for many people to see this movie, or your review, objectively.

And those people should damn well know that the only reason this movie was made was as a cash grab. They're cashing in on Michael's death, striking while the iron is hot. You might not care, but you should at least accept this.

Personally I love Michael -- the old one who made Off the Wall and Thriller. Much like Elvis, now that he's passed I feel free to remember any version of Michael I please. But frankly I think this movie is crass.

Wow, great non-review: take a blase joke that may have been funny for one sentence and stretch it out to a 8-paragraph review. Clever! I get it: it's hagiographic because Michael Jackson fans like him too much. Ha ha, joke's on them! I'm sure it takes quite some gumption to take on such a target - Elvis might be next.

Most annoying is the wont of altogether too many critics these days to get caught up in their "intelligence" and "wit." No rhyme, no reason. But I guess it's one's own fault for expecting something in the way of an actual movie review instead of a self-indulgent display of glibness.

This review sucketh because the reviewer sucketh the penith!!!

I can't stop imagining Daffy Duck saying this line.

beith -> art

Note, this is an English correction, not a comment on the creativity behind the review. This kind of review is why I'm a fan, MA; please continue to piss off the humorless. That said, perhaps it's too soon, but comedy is all about risk.

By David: And thy author shall be persecuted for her review. But fear not! For time passes quickly in cyberspace.

rotflmao ... thanks! :-)

And thanks for the review. It was a little self-indulgent...but so was Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, and much of Vonnegut and a great deal of Pratchett and I laugh at all of those, too.

O all ye shamefully abusedeth readers of this awfully failed attempteth at sarcastic satireth, witnesseth thou most sadlyeth, to this absolutelyethly blaspemous slander of the Most High God (And who if I need here statethet, the great Michael Jackson willingly and devoutly worshippedeth during his unfortunately short lifeth), by a shamelesseth hater of a dead man. A shamelesseth spite filled harridaneth; who would misuse the beautiful and sacred ancient English styleth of The Venerable King James Version of the Bible, to make an empty, hateful, disrespectful (and need I say a entirely false) point, about how Michael Jackson's fans worshipped and still worshippeth him. Recordeth thou then all ye true hearted folks, that all posterity might knoweth, how this failure of a movie criticeth, faileth to critique either the merits or demerits of the cinematic presentation of Michael Jackson last rehearsal footage, but rather vilely chooseth to use her worthless critique, to demeaneth the business partners, employees, and fans of the great and immortal Michael Jackson. Heareth me then, O thou spiteful and mean spirited Maryeth Anneth Johansoneth! I don't need any sarcasmeth from youeth, to knoweth that Michael Jackson, my Supreme Lord, is noteth! I admiredeth, enjoyedeth, and lovedeth his music, I never dideth worshipeth him as my God. God is both existentially and completely immortal (and not merely immortal in terms of leaving an immortal musical legacy as Michael Jackson did), so spareth me thy religiously couched sarcasm, and theologically unsound criticismeth. I will honor Michael Jackson's musical genius as long as I live, and teach my children to do the same (just as I honor the musical genius of other great musicians like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, Nat king Cole, Paganini, etc), and no amount of spite, contempt, or sarcasm on your part, or on the part of other shamelesseth tramplers of the memory of a helpless dead man like Michael Jackson, will ever change that. Long liveth the perfumed memory of Michael Jackson. Publisheth this disgustedeth commenteth of mineth, if youeth dareth! Johneth Odeheth!

"harridaneth"? Dude, in order to do this properly, it has to be readable and DONE PROPERLY. And what the heck is "Johnnus Odehus" supposed to be? Your genus and species?

Ye have surely shown thyself prostrate before your Lord and Almighty King of Pop. Ye shall be rewarded in the hereafter! So sayeth His Blessedness of Jackson most high.

And just before I taketh my leaveth of your idiotic review Maryeth Anneth Johansoneth, what in the helleth, have Michael Jackson's Autopsy and Toxicology Reports got to doeth with a cinematic presentation of his last rehearsals' footage? I guesseth that for unteachaeble, incorrigible, and implacable haters of Michael Jackson (like yourself), even the mere presentation of the late genius's last rehearsals footage to his devoted fans (meant if I need say so to hateful fools like yourself, who might not understand the reason why we are watching "This Is It"; as some measure of comfort for those of us, who loved the man and his music, and wanted to see this master of musical entertainment perform for us one last time), is an occassion to bash the man. He is dead, OKAY! He never killed anyone while he was alive, and all that his unjust and unfair haters, like yourself have to lay at his door, are unproven (and dismissed) allegations of child molestation. His vile accusers had their day in court and failed to prove their slanderous case. As far as I am concerned, the man was innocent of all those spurious charges, and nobody is going to tarnish his memory in my mind, by trashing a mere movie about his last rehaearsals, or my admiration of his musical genius. As my mother once toldeth me Maryeth Anneth Johansoneth, "if you don't have any good thing to sayeth about someone or something, then shut your (and this addition is mineth) ...fu**ing... trap up!" Heath Ledger, Marylyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Jimmy Hendrix, and many other fabulous people died of an accidental drug overdose, and these unfortunate final incidents in these great peoples' lives, does not in any way subtract from their greatness. I am not interested in the personal shortcomings of Michael Jackson (God knows I have plenty of mine to worry about, and so I am fully sure does every Michael Jackson hater like yourself). I will go to a movie theater on Thursday tomorrow to watch "This Is It," not to bash or tarnish the memory of a helpless dead man (who can no longer speak for himself), but to celebrate the man's wonderful music and artistic genius (as well as to enjoy even imperfect rehearsals for live performances of music I love), and I will never despise Michael Jackson, simply because he died of an 'insomnia related propofol overdose,' afterall who knows what the manner of their death will be. If spiteful and implacable Michael Jackson haters like yourself (and whose if I must say, incessant and steady stream of unfair and unwarranted criticisms helped to contribute to the downfall of his career and subsequent insomnia), cannot find final satisfaction in the end result of your fine handiwork (i.e. his untimely death), but rather still want to continue bashing him in death, as you bashed him unceasingly in life, then feel free to continue with your dastardly conduct. Your lives must be really empty indeed of any fulfillment, for you ill mannered monsters to seek solace in trashing the dead! Go get a lifeth, O thou most silly of movie criticeths Maryeth Anneth Johansoneth! Yours in great pity, Johneth Odeheth. Posteth thou this comment, if thou darest!

He's daring you. Isn't that adorable?

@Accounting Ninja, I'll pinch one cheek if you pinch the other!

A spot-on review. Good to see there are still a few individuals left in these days of Facebook "friends", Tweets, and general illiteracy who can still skewer with well-written satire.

Also spot on: "It's astonishing how few people can read above a fourth grade level."

Yeseth Accountingeth A-would-be-Ninjaeth, my English lexicon and verbiage are really quite attrocious, however in the satirical and mocking spirit of ineptly coopting The King James Version of the Bible's olden day English language, in order to better buttress our respective points (and heck whilst doing this, why don't we just latinize our names as well, for more scornful authenticity), my real name John Odeh is transformed to Johneth Odeheth, and Johnnus Odehus respectively. However you know what Mr. Accountingeth A-would-be-Ninjaeth, you are absolutely right! Both my biological genus and species are named Johnnus odehus, and I come from a distant planet, located in a distant galaxy, far far away that is entirely populated by humorless, witless, and loonie Michael Jackson worshippers. I lie prostrate all day, in the filth of my own spinelessly adoring ignorance, forever worshiping Michael Jackson's musical brilliance...NOT!!! But you know what genus and species you actually belong to, my fine gentleman (or lady)? Oh what the heck (since I am feeling so generous today), why don't I just save you the bother of having a cerebrovascular accident (aka "a stroke") which you will definitely get from too much thinking, since your Coconut Water filled and brainless skull, couldn't figure out your genus and species in a million light years. You Mr. or Madam "fine put-down artist" belong to the wonderful and very rare biological genus and species known to all Michael Jackson worshipping idolaters like myself, as Dumbus idioticus. And FYI, a "harridaneth," is better known in modern versions (or usages) of the English language, as a "harridan," a troll, a witch, "a malevolent trasher of the innocent and helpless dead," and last but not the least, "a Michael Jackson hating uber-bi*ch." Yours lunatically, Johnnus Odehus.

___________________________________________________

"And what the heck is "Johnnus Odehus" supposed to be? Your genus and species?"
___________________________________________________

Genus and Species name. Yes, that's likely exactly the point, as in "Fabius Maximus," or "Andreas Vesalius." Ancient Romans and men of renown in the olden days made use of such nomenclature.

Anyway, Johnnus Odehus, however dramatic is his verbiage, voiced what irked me about this review:
It seems to me the author takes issue with the, ah, "hagiographic" nature of the film as well as with devoted fans of Michael Jacksons whom she describes as "disciples" and "nameless supplicants".

It seems to me that the media more-or-less spit on him at least the last decade of his life, so if a movie wants to engage in a little beatification in the face of tasteless plastic surgery and child-molestation jokes, I don't see why such a tone should be mocked throughout this "review." It would certainly be fair to raise the issue, but for it to be the centerpiece of the review, frankly, was more than a little over-the top for me. I hardly think that makes me some humour-challenged stick-in-the mud as those who revel in the review seem to like to say. (And no, I'll not have my humour judged by those whose only knowledge of me is based on a few typed lines, thank you. Also, those who make such charges of humourlessness would do well to keep in mind that these things come around as they go around, and that there are (hopefully) certain forms of "humour" that they would themselves find objectionable.)

__________________________________________________

"No. It's hagiographic because it's hagiographic."
__________________________________________________

I was referring to the mock-hagiographic tone of your review, not tone of the film, though I suppose it was not worded in the clearest way. Whatever, it's just as well.

--"I was referring to the mock-hagiographic tone of your review, not tone of the film, though I suppose it was not worded in the clearest way. Whatever, it's just as well."

The tone of the review intentionally matched the tone of the film. And the review was about the film, not about Michael Jackson. Get it?

________________________________________

The tone of the review intentionally matched the tone of the film. And the review was about the film, not about Michael Jackson. Get it?
________________________________________

I got what the review was doing, thanks. Did I once say that the review was about Michael Jackson?

No.

--"I'm sure it takes quite some gumption to take on such a target - Elvis might be next."

Your words, from earlier. Given the context, I took "target" to be Jackson. Though maybe that's not what you intended to imply.

Right you are, more carelessness on my part. The part Elvis was tacked on, and looking back, I don't like it.
The target I referred to were MJ fans, and "Elvis" was supposed to mean "Evlis fans" rather than Elvis himself.

*headdesk* Ya, Lando, I was making fun of John Odeh using "Johnnus Odehus" as his mock "ye olde" name. See, he can't do it right. Adding "-eths" and "-iths" to weird words that don't go. And "-us" is WAY off. But you have brilliantly exposed my ignorance of Roman names. Bravo, sir! Except...that wasn't the point.

Seriously, such drama! Such defensiveness! MAJ's hagiograhpic style may not amuse you, but to be so frothingly defensive of Jackson as if she were defaming and ridiculing him or pissing on his grave...it boggles.

Here's what I took away from this: for a man so reviled for his (alleged? real?) crimes the past 15 years by everyone, this glowing, lionizing movie strikes me as creepy. Now that he's dead, everyone comes out to practically crown him king and god. I can imagine Jackson himself at best blushing with embarrassment and at worst feeling bitter. Where was everyone when he was going bankrupt and had to leave the country? If he WASN'T guilty of the crimes he was accused of, then he didn't deserve the shunning he received, and this movie is too little too late. If he DID do those horrible things, then he deserved what he got in life and this movie is just a cheap, masturbatory cover up of a man who did awful things. EITHER WAY it's all kinds of unsettling.

But anyway, please continue to insult me. I find it LOLtastic.

Where did I insult you, Ninja? Why are people putting words in my mouth? I was merely correcting you about the Latinized name, and if such correction was redundant, then it was redundant. But I wasn't insulting you, so chill. Talk about defensiveness.

I more or less agree with the rest of what you said, though. Except the part about my being "frothingly defensive", of course. For one thing, I think my response took a little more consideration than what may be described as "frothing" in my lexicon, but that's your judgement call to make.

I enjoyed the first half of the review and started skimming the second half. I think it must have been difficult to review a film that can't have much of a plot and is so focused on just one point. If this review was too long, the movie probably was too.

I enjoyed the first half of the review and started skimming the second half.

I felt the same way, except replace "review" with, "Bible." Is it fair to blame a parody for being tedious and repetitive when those are essential qualities of the source material?

The insulting part was directed at my original crazy troll, Johnnus.

But yeah, you were pretty defensive about your sense of humor, which was brought up by commenters, btw, and not in MAJ's original review.

Bravo to you all for a "rollicking good time" the last few minutes!

Hi Lando Calrissian. I quite agree with your analysis of MAJ's review of "This Is It." I intended to take my leave of this blog, but then I had to stay to reply to the nasty comment by Accounting Ninja concerning my post, and thereby also read your insightful comment about my previous post. MAJ is trying to be very clever and disingenuous, when she states that her review is only about the movie, and not about Michael Jackson. How can you say it is not about Michael Jackson, when the entire narrative is about how his business partners, employees, and fans (not to talk of himself, since he therein (i.e. in MAJ's review), enthusiastically embraces his role as a false deity), worship him, hang onto his every word and deed, and experience a beatific vision of some sorts, from merely being in his presence. Humor and satire are all well and good, and I enjoyed reading (and still enjoy reading) "Gulliver's Travels" amongst the Lilliputans and the Big-Enders, as well as the next man or woman (such political-social subjects, are what good satire is for). However I am a devout Roman Catholic; who worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This means I am a monotheist, and I really don't appreciate being called (or described as) a mindless Michael Jackson worshipping idolater, simply because I enjoy his music and dancing, or admire his musical talent. I have read other movie critics' review of "This Is It," and one of them described this Rehearsals' Footage, as being a straight-forward unsentimental presentation of Michael Jackson's rehearsals, for what he and his fans hoped would be a great series of come-back concerts. There was no glorification or attempted beatification/cannonization of the Michael Jackson to be seen in the movie? His rehearsals, were simply allowed to speak for themselves. We all know Michael Jackson was a supremely talented, yet flawed man (i.e. at least in certain personal and social respects). And no one is elevating him to the status of God Almighty (or Jesus Christ). We (at least his fans and well-wishers), are merely celebrating what we loved about his life on this earth (particularly his musical genius, and his humanitarian work). That is what humanity does for any member of our species (even executed felons) that sails on to the land of the dead. Mourning Michael Jackson's untimely death, is neither extraodinary, unheard of, nor worshipful. So in my humble (yet angry and dissappointed) opinion, there is no call to write a viciously scornful movie review that is openly contemptuous, of everyone that cares to watch a mere movie, made from concert rehearsal footage (that by the way, were intended only for Michael Jackson's own private viewing (probably as a self-critiquing tool), and were never meant for public viewing), following a beloved (even if tragic, and sometimes astonishingly naive) entertainer's unexpected death. It is abundantly obvious that many people don't really care for Michael Jackson as a person, and that indeed is their fundamental human right! And yes, O yes, we get it, we very clearly get it!!! Many of you who have posted comments on this blog, think the man was a disgusting child molesting pervert; who used his money and celebrity to get off the hook, just like OJ Simpson "allegedly" did. However do try and be broad minded enough, to remember that quite a few of us (both his devoted fans and some casual disinterested observers of the Michael Jackson saga) believe him to have been innocent of all those unproven allegations, and remember also that we too have both the right to mourn, as well as to celebrate the life of this musical giant, without being contemptuously portrayed and ridiculed, as idolatrous, humorless, foolish, gullible, and star-struck worshippers of a falsely divine Michael Jackson, simply because we want to watch a concert rehearsals movie about him. Peace Out! John Odeh.

Many of you who have posted comments on this blog, think the man was a disgusting child molesting pervert

Here's where I call BULLSHIT. No one here has mentioned a damn thing about that. In fact, rereading the comments, it's been rather civil to the man himself.
The worst thing said was that he went "loony". But that's pretty tame and that's not uncommon for an eccentric celebrity.

Ninja, I was defensive of my humour. I was downright bristling in response to what I saw as a biased, self-serving, and dismissive comments about people being "humourless." One sees it all the time: a callous (or not callous, depending on point of view) joke is made and the common recrimination is that those who don't agree with the joke lack humour. So I was airing my frustrations on that, rightly, I think.

And I am aware that it was "those who revel in the review" that made such remarks, and not the author of the review.

But that is all neither here nor there. Short answer: I'm sure you're right.

__

And keep it real, John Odeh.

@Amanohyo: Well, I did try to imply that the undue length of the source material led to the undue length of the review. Perhaps I was unclear.

I read the Bible and found that required a lot of skimming, too, mostly of rules for ritual sacrifice and lists of who begat who.

@General readers: It is perfectly possible to write a negative review about a movie without being negative about the person the movie is about. It's quite easy to make a bad movie about Washington, Lincoln, Jesus, or Buddha, just as it is possible to make a well done movie about Hitler, Stalin, or Nixon. Monty Python walked a similiar line when making "Life of Brian," trying to mock religious followers while being respectful of Jesus.

Why would I want to think critically? That requires time and effort, and I only waste those on sports and alcohol.

I hope this movie banks so deceased Mike can pay off some of his creditors!

And what is up tith this John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus guy? Why do you waste so much energy and prose to prove nothing?

Try to lighten up bro! Just becuase MJ was the King of Pop and pedophilia, it doesn't mean people can't get a good post-mortem chuckle out of it. People take death too serious these days.

You should laugh at death and cry at birth.

"tith" should be "with." Before the online-grammar-Nazis get me, just know I'll try to proofread next time!

When someone can suggest that *I* am describing "devoted fans of Michael Jacksons" "as 'disciples' and 'nameless supplicants,'" that says that either the writer has not seen the film or has seen the film but is incapable of recognizing that *it is the film* that describes fans thus.

I found it quite disturbing, in fact, that *This Is It* can present, say, dancers auditioning for the *This Is It* concert performance as literally in tears of joy at being allowed the opportunity to dance in an audition for Jackson without even bothering to identify them by name, as if they were nothing beyond their worship of Jackson. There is actually a dancer who flew from Australia to Los Angeles on two days' notice of the audition, and we never even learn if he made the cut. Was his worship of Jackson thwarted, or not? This is a question that is worth answering in a context other than the one that this film is interested in exploring.
_________________________

No, I did not see the film and was thinking of seeing it (online). Part of my perusing reviews was to decide whether to see the movie or not.

The above comment alone did more for me than the entire review. Had that come across to me in the review itself instead of "beith(?)" this and "beholdeth" that, then I'd likely have had no problem with it. In fact, I would've found it fantastic and illuminating. Instead what I saw was a performance piece in which the fans *were* described as supplicant disciples, but somehow I was to divine that it was the movie and not the author that views them in this way. Fine, I'll see the thing, and if it is as ridiculous as the author says, I may yet be singing MaryAnn Johanson's praises.

Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for 4th grade remedial reading class.

No need to "divine" that Mary Ann was talking about the movie and not the fans - she wrote a Movie review - period - that is what she does. It is a given that what she is writing when she does a review is about the movie! It says right up there at the top - "Michael Jackson's This Is It (A review)". Hope the class helps!

John Odeh - THANK YOU for your comments. They were an ocean of relief amongst all the other comments.

I am a completely devoted fan of Michael's, and I would go to hell and back to defend him. I know other people think I'm crazy or whatever, I don't even care anymore. He is one of the most misunderstood people that we've known of and he's had to deal with a LOT of really horrible BS that has been said by the media and that the general public eventually believed. I didn't become a fan until after he died but I've read stories of what long-term fans have had to deal with, and it breaks my heart. A lot of fans have been emotionally hurt by cruel words said by other people.

However, I think that as a fan, it's important to try to come to terms with what criticism is fair and what criticism is unfair. There is a lot that I do not agree with at all in Mary Ann's review. But you know, I also didn't see her bringing his personal life into it. A lot of criticisms/reviews/articles about him do that, and a LOT of things that have been released since he died and had the label 'tribute' slapped on them have said a lot of really ignorant and evil BS. I am in complete love with this film because Kenny Ortega brought none of that into it. I know some fans probably don't like it, and that's fine with me. This is something I love, though, because I don't think we've gotten to see a lot of positive messages like what this film has in it.
But, yeah, not everyone is going to like it, and I read some pretty upsetting reviews last night that were far worse and more personal than what Mary Ann has written here. It's upsetting to me to see comments above from fans who are attacking her because of what she wrote. You are attacking the completely wrong person. As I said, most of this review I really do not agree with. But it didn't make me so angry that I felt a need to reply with angered words like calling Mary Ann a hater. Yes, it is very frustrating when we feel like someone doesn't see what we see in Michael. I love that man so much, we all do. But I don't think it's a great way to use energy to attack someone simply for having different taste than you. It's when it starts getting personal, and they start throwing attacks against Michael himself, that's when I get pissed. But I understand how some people would see him as trying to be a martyr or something, and that devoted fans are crazy or whatever. I do understand how people outside of the bubble can think that. I do get very frustrated a lot of the time with things like this but I also know that it's not worth the energy to care about because while someone is sitting here reading or writing a review about how Michael worked really hard to create an image, or whatever, someone else is writing about pedophile-related things or calling him a drug addict or whatever other slander someone feels like talking about. There is a world of difference between a person not liking this film, or his music, compared to someone being a hater.

My take on the film? It's a privilage to be able to see how he rehearsed and try to make everything gel together to present a perfect live show to his fans. The man absolutely LOVED his fans. I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who publicly expressed it the way that Michael did. This is one reason why I am a devoted fan and will defend him until the end of days. It was so nice to see him in that setting of doing his thing and making his magic and us being able to see his sense of humour, his joy at working his craft. And yes, I think Mary Ann didn't do anything wrong when she mentiond the autopsy. So many people were trying to paint him a drug addict who was just way too 'weak and frail' to do the concerts. This rehearsal footage proves them wrong. But of course, this is just how I feel.

I don't think Mary Ann said anything that was truly awful, even if I don't agree with most of it, and it's upsetting to see Michael fans being so horrible towards her.

@ ManicAsh: thanks for your comments. As a geek, I too have things I am a big fan of that might seem weird to others. I think there are a lot of others here like me, including MaryAnn herself. We all have our fandoms and I'd like to think that no one here at Flickfilosopher would ever begrudge anyone their fan geekery. She did recognize that fans would love it.
So, diehard fans of MJ, rock on!!

And thank you for recognizing that no one here viciously attacked the man himself. I would ALSO like to think we folks here at Flickfilosopher are above just mindlessly hating on someone. Generally, this is a reasonable bunch, if somewhat snarky and wise-assy. :)

No need to "divine" that Mary Ann was talking about the movie and not the fans - she wrote a Movie review - period - that is what she does. It is a given that what she is writing when she does a review is about the movie! It says right up there at the top - "Michael Jackson's This Is It (A review)". Hope the class helps!

_______

That sure didn't. Why are you telling me what I already know? I understand it's a movie review was confused by the target of the sentence. No, that answer won't do. Perhaps you should join me in class.

I wanted to come back to apologize to you Mary Ann - I realised that a few of my comments may be seen as backhanded insults, like when I kept repeating that I don't agree with what you wrote, and if so then I sincerely apologize for it. I love reading your reviews and what you have to say, and I'm also a big Dr Who fan, and I haven't read anything that I hate here and I certainly don't hate you. So, yeah, I just wanted to apologize if you feel like I was trying to insult you.

@MAJ - As if the original review weren't fantastic on its own, I think this whole thread would be worth it just for your little mini-essay on media literacy here in the comments. Too many people can't articulate their reaction to any work of art or entertainment beyond "like" and "dislike," nor can they understand how to peel apart the different elements of subject, message, creator, and interpretation. You've nailed that squarely on the head, and provided a mini-lesson in the process.

I've thought for a long while that the study of rhetoric should be re-introduced into American education. If we could manage to drill those basic principles into people, we might just get some savvier media consumers. In the meantime, I'll enjoy watching you and the "regulars" here take the trolls down a peg or three.

What a great site. Beats the hell out of the flame wars of most other entertainment sites.

Hi Everyone! In response to the comments by Maryann Johanson, Manic Ash, Lando Calrissian, and Accounting Ninja, I will admit that maybe I have been a bit too harsh in my responses, to what I felt was a sly and cleverly worded assault upon both the person of Michael Jackson, as well as the character of his fans and co-workers. Since all these allegations of Child Molestation arose in MJ's life (back then during the Jordan Chandler case, I was still a child myself, and someone who was not a particularly big fan of MJ, because I was absolutely crazy about playing the Guitar, and I never got to see MJ playing one), it has seemed to me that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has flown right out of the window of American Culture, to be replaced by a scary presumption of 'guilty even after acquital.' But to be fair to many of those who are not particularly thrilled about the movie "This Is It," I must agree that none on this blog have explicitly stated that they hate the movie because they hate MJ, and it was therefore wrong for me to read that sort of malicious motive into their criticism of this movie. So for unfairly implying that all critics of the movie "This Is It" on this blog, are malevolent anti Michael Jackson haters, I appologize! Regardless of how upset I am about the many folks, who are too quick to judge someone as being guilty on mere hear-say, I should not be guilty of the very same unfair bias and "rush to judgement" that I fervently oppose. However I do feel that we should take the movie "This Is It" for what it is; a collection of pieces of Michael Jackson's last concert rehearsals footage that were never meant either for public viewing, or to be held to the strict standards of a professionally shot documentary like "Fahrenheit 911," or a bio-pics like the oscar winning "Ray," "Johnny Cash," etc. "This Is It," is not a fully fleshed out examination of Michael Jackson's life. It was never meant to be! We are not going to find therein, the examination of his virtues, vices, wisdoms, follies, strenghts, and weaknesses, etc, one would expect from a fully crafted biographical picture of his life. Here is not to be found, answers to perplexing questions like why, he was so stubborn about continuing a friendship with children (however innocent or well intentioned) that society clearly did not approve of, and not surprisingly viewed with deep suspicion. I do not expect to learn from "This Is It," why such a prominent celebrity couldn't get the proper medical care he needed to deal with a severe case of insomnia (I am currently a healthcare professional, and I never knew medical help was so hard to find in the most technologically advanced country on Earth). So "This Is It" definitely doesn't answer a lot of these perplexing questions about Michael Jackson's life. However, it was never meant to. It wasn't even intended to be released for public viewing (which is one of the reasons La Toya Jackson opposed its widescreen release), and I think we should all bear this factors in mind, while critiqueing its cinematic merits. What it does do though, is give us a glimspe into what the 50-odd concert shows would have looked like, if Michael Jackson had not suddenly died of a propofol overdose.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, John, I have always reserved judgement on MJ. While I think child molestation is a horrible crime, I do not know MJ, nor did I sit in on the trial or see the evidence. I don't have all the information to make a judgement one way or another. And with someone as prominent and hotly discussed as MJ, you can never be sure where the truth lies. I'll definitely agree with you that often times, Americans seem ready to tar and feather someone while knowing NOTHING about the case.
I think he was an odd duck, to be sure, but that doesn't make him guilty.
I take back calling you a troll, btw. A troll wouldn't have owned up to being too harsh like you did.

Geez, someone has a loyal readership! The pushback here is impressive and overwhelming. I give up.

Trolls don't apologize, so good on John Odeh. And while I'm not so big as that, I'll admit that I maybe I was a too vehement in my reaction to the review.

Oddly, some of the people giving me flak for my huffiness seemed to think that I was attacking the author on a personal level, which isn't my style. It's ironic, since one of the themes along this thread is mistaking critique of a work for ad hominem. I don't have anything against the critic except what I thought was the case if her dissing Michael Jackson fans or glowing works about MJ (and apparently, it's not the case). Besides, anyone who hates Transformers 2 and likes Spirited Away among other things can't be all bad.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter much. Given the discussion generated here, who wins here? I'd say MaryAnn Johanson wins. Maybe Kenny Ortega and Sony Pictures win a little too. Maybe even Michael Jackson wins.

John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus love your review of the review. I don’t get it. The man has been dead for 4 months. Why are you people *still* Googling his name, going on websites, and posting your stoopid comments? The fans can understand the fascination because he was the greatest entertainer of our time. But you haters should really get a life and stop spending your precious time posting comments about him. Don’t you have something better to do? Like creating something? Or feeding starving children? Or doing something for the ecology? Or calling your mothers to see how they're doing? Or some housework? And for God’s sake come up with something original. We’ve heard it all before, move on, get professional help about your obsession with Michael. He’s dead, get over it. Truly, are your lives that bereft that you must, just must slander a total stranger? A man you do not know? While you were busy typing essays here, were you paying any attention to your kids? Or were you staring into your computer half the night? Turn off the computer, go get your kids, look them in the eyes, and tell them you love them. You can thank Michael for that sentiment.

I don't have any opinion on MJ's legal battles, and very little on him as a person. But I also don't have any liking for or interest in his music. I just don't like it. There are lots of us out there who are not "haters" and yet have zero interest in a quasi-documentary about MJ's rehearsals.

However, there are other things I'm deeply fannish about--but not one that I'm so fannish I can't think about it critically if I want to. And uncritical fannishness kind of worries me.

Yes I do consider myself to be a devoted fan. Yes, I did become a fan after 6/25. I didn't talk shit about him before he died - I was indifferent. But then he died and for the first time since I was a child, I watched his videos, listened to him, etc. I am devoted because a] I get paranoid that people are negatively judging me in their minds because of the fact that I wasn't 'around' as a fan until that time when EVERYONE was praising him; and b] I fell in love quickly with who he is and what he has done, and his music is something I can connect to, and from what I know about him, there are things I imagine I can relate to. And he also has brought back optimism into my life [long life story that no-one cares about]. I hope this doesn't sound stupid.

Hm, basis for my claims of him being misunderstood, had to deal with BS, etc.? Spending the majority of these past four months reading about the man, and spending time in a very active Michael community here online, and I was able to learn of at least three personal stories from people of how they've been affected. I don't know him personally, no, but there is an unexplainable magic and genuine love that you feel when you love Michael. I really hope I don't sound preachy, I don't want to preach at all. Just telling my viewpoint. The molestation charges are the biggest pile of steaming crap I've ever heard in my life, and it really doesn't take that much to read up on them and see how he was treated by people. And it's the same about how I feel about him being misunderstood. It seems like so many people don't realise this. One aspect that has really stuck inside of my mind is when I saw a photo of him as a kid, and he's in a hospital and standing next to the bed of a sick girl. A lot of people say he hangs out with kids most of the time as an adult because he's trying to 'recreate' his childhood. But I think that is a bit misunderstood because of the fact that he ALWAYS cared about his fans, about children who were his own age, and he remained so consistant during all of his life. Other BS...I'm sick of most people not acknowledging vitiligo. I suppose in one aspect, yes I am part of the 'general public', but I try not to pay too much attention to negative things stated in tribute magazines. I really agree with what you said about us feeling like we know celebrities but we don't at all - with Michael, a devoted fan has this constant feeling of love. He loved fans, he loved children, he loved the world, he was a very forgiving person from what I know. I am aware that there is information I have no idea about, with Michael. He was a really private person. What I do know is the general feeling that is there for a fan. this is why I love him so much and why I believe he was a good person.

Oops, can't edit my comment. the three personal stories I meant to mention, I mention them because they are very intense stories. They stand out to me, and these fans are beautiful.

I'm sorry that first paragraph with an a and b probably doesn't make sense. I need to go to sleep!

PS - I didn't mean to sound like I supported everything that John Odeh said. I was at work and skimmed comments instead of properly reading, and there was something that I saw that I liked...sorry, felt the need to explain I suppose.

Can you please delete all of my comments from here? I'm fine with people not agreeing with how I feel but I would rather not have really personal comments here, which perhaps yes I should have thought about before posting, but I was trying to answer questions you gave to me. It was a mistake and I don't know how to delete these comments myself.

Don't worry, ManicAsh, you should see some of the comments of a personal nature I have kicking around here. O_o

Wonderful review Mary Ann. I always know I'll find a fresh and original approach when you review a film.

Wow, I don't understand how someone can become such a pious freak after only listening to MJ for a few months. That is scary sad.

Hi Maryann Johanson. I read your response to specific aspects of my last post, and would like to state some things in reply as well. Lets start with the first issue you raised reproduced below:

""However I do feel that we should take the movie "This Is It" for what it is; a collection of pieces of Michael Jackson's last concert rehearsals footage that were never meant either for public viewing"

Right: this was footage (we're told) intended for Jackson's own archives. So you'd better believe that the people operating the cameras were likely to have focused on material that Jackson would have wanted archived, and not on anything that wasn't flattering or didn't cast him in at least a moderately positive light. That might make it interesting and insider-y, but only in the same way that, say, someone's wedding album might be. It was designed from the beginning to ensure that Jackson looked good. But, you know, most people's wedding albums are pretty tedious to look at, unless you're in the photos.""

I do believe this 2 hr 1 min movie, is culled from selected portions of 88 hrs of rehearsals' footage. And as you said much of this 2 hr 1 min movie showcases Michael Jackson in his best light, but is that so strange? If my Mother made a movie culled from random footage shot during my first year of life, she would hardly be expected to show shots of me retching, or making a nuisance of myself etc. She rather, would showcase what she considered the most memorable moments of my first year of life that were captured on camera. "This Is It" was produced by MJ's fellow workers, and longtime business partners; who also in many instances double up as some of his biggest fans (clearly the case, since they can be seen therein, engaged in an effort to resurrect the career of a much shunned and disparaged musical icon; a man who had been written off as a has-been by most of his critics). So if a devoted business partner Kenny Ortega (who also if I might add, is still mourning the recent and unexpected death of dear a friend), paints his friend in a good light, is that so strange or so wrong? If one your close friends or business partners following your untimely death, made a movie about you less than 6 months after your death, and painted you in a horrible light, wouldn't that be considered really strange, and a betrayal as well? However after freely admitting that this movie comes from people with good feelings, memories, and intentions, etc, about and towards Michael Jackson, as opposed to being a movie made by some of his harshest critics, it doesn't mean the movie is worshipful, a cause for his cannonization (the man wasn't even Catholic fo God's sake, so how could he ever be cannonized a saint?) or that it tries to conceal the man's flaws. It simply doesn't address them! And this is because Michael Jackson's personal flaws, is not the subject matter of this concert rehearsals documentary. I watched this movie twice yesterday, as I already said I would, and looked out for all the things you mentioned in your review. Yes it is true that many of the artists featured therein kept on stating that MJ knew his music, but then to be fair to them, the man did really know his music! They were not lying? They were simply stating a known fact that Michael Jackson was a hugely talented, perfectionist-of-a-musician, who also happened to know his music inside-out. Now to someone (and I am not saying that you are that someone, because I simply do not know you well enough, to make such an assumption) who has not hung around musically gifted artists as long as I have, it may seem over the top for these musicians to keep on repeating this comment with so much evident respect and awe, but I totally get it! In this modern age of commercial music, oftentimes the Lead Singer (or whover the main Celebrity Performer happens to be), is not a very musically diverse or skilled artist. They usually understand only very narrow aspects of their musical craft (e.g. singing, dancing, or playing a specific instrument, etc), while remaining quite ignorant about other aspects of the overall production of their show, like the rhythm lines on the guitars or keyboards, the various musical keys, tempos, time to modulate from musical key to another, the vocal solos, the musical harmonies by various instruments and voices, etc. Michael Jackson was not only a Lead Singer-Dancer Celebrity; he was also a Composer-Conducter-Set Director-Choreographer-Art Director-Musical Producer-Business Executive-Hands-on CEO of the highest rank, and that was the reason for the sometimes effussive praise you heard coming from those dancers, singers, guitarists, aerialists, choreographers, and pianists. It was simply the well deserved respect, one highly talented artist pays to another (especially a recently departed artistic peer). If you read one of my previous posts, I mentioned not particularly being a big fan of MJ's music before the Jordan Chandler accusations, and I stated also that this was because I was a totally obsessed guitar playing neophyte at the time. Thus most of my musical heroes and heroines, were the Guitar Playing Greats; like Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Slash of "Guns n Roses," Peter Tosh, Robert Johnson, BB King, etc. Michael Jackson did not feature on my list of musical heroes at all, and I used to really wonder why people made so much noise about him, or hailed him a great musician. I totally didn't get it all back then. Indeed I did not really respect MJ's musicianship or artistry at all (although I did enjoy them for their entertainment value, and danceable rhythms) until I watched one of his musical videos; the one that contained the immortal "Smooth Criminal," and therein witnessed his brilliant collaboration with the outstanding South African acapela group "Lady Smith Black Mombazo." Then I started to really study his music seriously; not just looking upon him, as yet another one of those vocally talented dancers, who had manage to steal all the musical glory from the rest of the band (because they are usually out in front of the band, screaming their lungs out), while remaining virtually musically un-educated. I found out from my study of Michael Jackson, that here was actually one of those rare folks deserving of the title "Musical Genius." Michael Jackson I discovered, was not only a great singer with a beautiful voice of great range and dextrity; almost like the ancient Castrati singers of the Sistine Chapel in Rome, but was also a virtuoso composer and musical conductor. I learned he played the guitar and piano (as almost all composers do), but humbly realized that his virtuosity did not lie in these areas, and therefore never played them publicly, or on stage. He left such artistry to other musicians like Slash and the young Orianthi Panagaris,; whose talents lie in these directions. And this I found out was the more stunningly so, because unlike either Mozart, or Beethoven, or Schumann, or Bach, etc, Michael Jackson had received no formal musical training! All he got were whip-driven rehearsals presided over by his taskmaster of a Dad (who of course meant it for the best. So this comment, is not meant to be taken as any implied criticism of Joe Jackson, after all even though I deplore his music/dancing coaching methods, he did successfully water the flower of MJ's genius, and for that I am eternally grateful to the oldman). Unlike those great composers of the halcyon "Golden Rococo Period," Michael Jackson could not read or write music (Lionel Ritchie; who co-wrote "We are the World" with him, recently acknowledged this fact). He simply heard everything completely in his head (which Mozart did also, and which is quite an astonishing musical talent requiring the gift of a "perfect pitch"), and yet was able to communicate these unwritten melodies and harmonies to his band of singers and instrumentalists, without the aid of any musical notes or papers. His death is a great loss for any avid follower of music like me; who was just waiting to see what MJ would compose next. And this feeling of awe for a great musician; the same thing I feel when I examine the works of Mozart, Hadyn, Schubert, Bob Marley (another musically illiterate lyrical genius, who died at the young age of 36 years), or Sappho (the great Greek singer-poetess-musician from the island of Lesbos in ancient Greece, and who was derided/rejected/exiled for being the first prominent lesbian in human history), is the same thing (perhaps you would describe it as worship) many artists displayed in that movie for Michael Jackson. It is neither a bad thing, nor is it something to be derided and dismissed as mindless uncritical worship! Honor and reverence, should be given when and to whomever it is due. Afterall as the old adage goes, "Give (even) the Devil his due!" The man MJ, despite all his personal flaws, was a jaw droppingly talented musician, and I think it is okay to make a documentary that unabashedly celebrates that without having to apologize for doing so. And yes I agree with you that if you do not share the same feelings I have expressed above, you might find such praise idolatrous, and maybe quite tedious to watch. But remember yet again, what I have said from my very first post, this movie gives us a rare and treasured glimpse into how a master of musical artistry and showmanship, prepares to achieve perfection on stage, it does not reflect the perfect finished product (since he did not live to perform it on stage). That finished product has forever been concealed from our view, and swallowed by death (maybe after the resurrection of the dead at the end of this age, he will someday get to stage those final concerts, I don't know since I am neither divine, nor prescient), but nevertheless therein, we can see an astonishingly fit 50 year old dancer keeping up with much younger performers, and also very gently inspiring, shaping, and fine-tunig their performances; inspiring them to reach for the summit of perfection. It was a beautiful thing to behold, and I did not find it deceitful, self-adulatory at all. It wasn't an attempt at starting a cause for MJ's cannonization as the saint of musical entertainment. But then, you cannot either beatify, or cannonize a person that wasn't saintly in the first place. So no need to worry, if MJ is not worthy of the praise being lavished upon him, time will tell, and his glory will not last. I once read a book titled "The Nature of Genius" by Andrew Germant." This American medical practitioner, and student of the subject of 'human genius,' postulated that one of the main characteristic of a genius, is the longevity of his/her work. If 2 hundred years from now, people are still playing Michael Jackson's music, if students go to college to learn about whatever made the man tick, then we his fans and the makers of "This Is It" would have been vindicated. But in the interim, since neither you nor I, is likely to live that long, I guess we are free to either anoint MJ the Great musical Genius I belive him to be, and therefore worthy of all accolades lavished upon him, or people like you can throw up your hands in disgust, and say that our praise is too much, only time will tell who amongst our 2 parties is right. But at least let us be civil, and not call each other names like, "worshipful supplicants, "Blind Michael Jackson Apologists," etc. When Michael Jackson died, his personal trainer (a man who once starred as the Incredible Hulk) came on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc, to talk about how he had been training MJ for these 50 concert shows (didn't you hear him speak on TV at all?). He told us how MJ had kept up very well with his trainer's demanding physical regimen, with humility, dedication, and none of the usual diva tantrums so often seen with Hollywood Stars. MJ's physical training routines however, were not the focus of the movie "This Is It." We all know that he had to train hard to get back in concert-form after spending such a long time off the stage, nobody is trying to conceal that. Michael Jackson even alluded to this very thing in some parts of the movie "This Is It," specifically where (and when) he jokes with one of his young female singers, who had basically inspired him into a sort of singing competition at the end of one their songs (a competition, if I might say the 50 year old Master won handily), when he said "Why are doing this to me, making me to sing out? You know I cannot do that, I am only warming up my voice for the moment (presumably for the actual concert performances, when he could actually let go, and let everything hang out),... I have to save my voice... It is okay for her to do that (to Kenny Ortega; who was telling him that he could indulge in singing appetites from time to time, since he so obviously was feeling the inspiration come upon him)... but you know I cannot do that...I have to save my voice..." At another earlier part of this movie, he goes to great lengths to tell his musical director/the band, at the conclusion of one of his songs that "...I have to conserve my throat..." during the final bars and flourishes of that song, thereby clearly and very humbly stating that he wasn't going to sing those difficult "grace notes" like he would sing them in an actual concert (i.e. with all the adrenaline pumping through him, and the give-and-take with an enraptured inspiring, and demanding audience), and so they should bear with him for just singing in an ordinary way, through those final bars (I have rehearsed for a lot of classical concerts, and I understand exactly what he was saying. Only a foolish singer, would ruin their voice before the real show begins). Michael Jackson was a very humble, and generous (with his tips that is) Lead Singer; who fully knew and accepted his vocal limits. I don't see any effort in this movie to conceal the natural effect ageing, has on this artist's ability to perform vigorously. But on the other hand to be quite honest, he did keep up with those younger performers quite well, and even taught them a thing or two.He really immpressed those youngsters, during his dancing solo, at the end of his "Billie Jean" rehearsal (you could both see and hear them gasping in delighted amazement at his antics). I don't think any of those claps, hoots, delighted screams, and jumping up and down in amazement by those 11 top-notch professional dancers were feigned. You would have to be really cynical, to believe they were pretending to be impressed. Next you comment on one of my statements as follows:

""or to be held to the strict standards of a professionally shot documentary like "Fahrenheit 911," or a bio-pics like the oscar winning "Ray," "Johnny Cash," etc.

Is *anyone* attempting to hold this movie to such a standard?""

In response to my assertion that "This Is It," should not be held up to the same standard as oscar nominated or winning bio-pics like "Ray," and "Johnny Cash." Well that is exactly what you did in your original satirical review, and you are still continuing to do just that with your following statements, which I will address more fully in my reply to the final issue you raised you raised with my posts, namely:

""This Is It," is not a fully fleshed out examination of Michael Jackson's life. It was never meant to be!"

"You know what? Neither *Ray* nor *Johnny Cash* are fully fleshed out examinations of their subjects, either. But at least those films acknowledge their subjects as flawed and human. There's no such hint in *This Is It.* Jackson is just saintly and perfect.

Here's an idea as to how *This Is It* could have done otherwise, without being any less glowing or celebratory or "for the fans." Even if the 50-year-old Jackson were in absolutely perfect health, it would be hard to believe that he was able to keep up with a team of stunningly fit dancers half his age. We see the young dancers working out together -- we see the work they had to do in order to be able to do what they did onstage. But we see nothing of Jackson's work. Did he have a coach or a trainer? What did he do to warm up, to prepare, to keep as fit as he must have been to do what he did? Did he ache after rehearsals? Did he laugh about how tough it was to keep up with these kids?

If the cameras caught anything at all like that -- and it's unlikely they did; see my comment above -- leaving that out of the film creates a very different impression of Jackson that putting it in would have.""

It is true that neither of the above-mentioned bio-pics are "fully fleshed out," versions of either of these artists lives, i.e. in the narrow sense of either of the bio-pics telling us everything we would like to know about either Johnny Cash or Ray Charles. Yet in a broader sense they are actually "fully fleshed out" bio-pics, because they clearly try to tell us the story of these artists lives, indeed the Ray Charles bio-pic starts from his boyhood right through his manhood. "This Is It," if I may (hopefully for the last time) state here again, is a narrowly focused movie about how Michael Jackson, and his merry band of fellow singers, dancers, actors, aerialists, choreographers, fashion designers, set decorators, and musicians prepared for a series of 50 sold-out concerts. It presents (either as a comforting bone, or as a "half-bread is better than none" kind of comfort to his grieving and bitterly dissappointed fans) some of the songs, we were dying to watch our dearly departed "King of Pop" perform. We know that making sausages suck (and is quite a messy process), and we did not go to the theaters this week, to watch each and every tiny detail of how MJ tried to make his sausages for us (or to see him fall flat on his face while making them), we rather went to these movie theaters, to eat whatever we can, even of half-done sausages! This is how much we loved Michael Jackson's musical sausages, and I completely understand if folks like "Mel" who do not like MJ's music, don't feel like watching, but I do love his music, and I should not be satirized as an ignorant and undiscriminating worshiper of a dead musician's artistry, simply because I feel privileged to have been allowed to share in his creative process. Once you start dissecting everything, and nit-picking about whether this movie shows MJ's physical training difficulties in keeping up with younger dancers, or singers (and I should mention here that actually quite unlike the case with a dancer's ageing body, a singer's voice improves with age), you totally miss the point of this movie. That is not the purpose of the flick at all! The time will come to make movies based on Michael Jackson's entire life, with professional actors (i.e. if we are going to ever find someone that can convincingly play Michael Jackson), and actresses. Such future movies, will examine his career, his talent, his personal short-comings (for instance, his seeming inability to establish a lasting socio-sexual relationship with a woman (Here I mean, either a marital or at least, a long-lasting boyfriend-girlfriend relationship), even though he clearly adored women, an they adored him in return, his poor social choices (or should I say socially inappropriate conduct) in allowing himself to get too close to children not his own, his stunning naivete in thinking that suspicious modern day American society would accept and not exploit such foolish (and frowned upon) conduct, simply because it was well-intentioned, etc). "This Is It," does not do that and was never intended to do that! So I still stand by my original thesis that you (and some other movie critics) expect too much from a simple "Rehearsals or Concert Preparation Documentary." For the past near 2 decades, Michael Jackson has been bashed, and maligned incessantly in both the tabloid and main-stream media. He became the subject of very unkind plastic surgery (even though we now find out, he was not only badly burned during the Pepsi Commercial, but actually did suffer from Vitiligo as he had always truthfully said he did - My References: Those Autopsy Reports you mentioned in your review (with the areas of depigmentation on his body, as well as a widely disemminated picture of his legs shown on Cable TV), and thus very clearly needed the plastic surgery/dermatology treatments) and child molester jokes. We have all become so accustomed, to hearing Michael Jackson's name mentioned only in the company of harsh criticism that some (and in this case, I think yourself) find it quite jaring (maybe even unpleasant and deceitful) to hear the man spoken about in terms that are largely positive. But I submit humbly, many people perhaps were not listening all this while, to many of the positive stories in this man's life, his well-wishers, as well as a few non-interested onlookers were trying to tell . A lot of people for the past near 2 decades have been pleading his case, we have been reminding the world that MJ was more than just a plastic surgery junkie (one who either suffered from dysmorphia or else hated his racial ancestry), or a reclusive self-involved narcissistic celebrity, or an alleged child molester, etc. I never found any of those cruel anti Michael Jackson jokes funny, I never laughed at any of them, because I knew he most likely was only guilty, of an astonishing lack of "common sense," and social inappropriateness in his relationships with non-relative children. But I was not going to jail a man, ruin his career, tarnish his reputation, deny him his well-deserved musical accolades, and hate him for being socially inept back then, and I won't do so now. Many in this world, have committed various sins against the reigning social etiquette of the day, and if we jail all such people, we would very soon have no space left in our jails. So if people like me are now finally getting our voices heard, after this man's untimely death has forced people to listen to our near 2 decades old messages that said, Michael Jackson has contributed more of his disposable income to charity than any other celebrity in this our modern era (he still holds the Guiness Book of Records title for this category), he is a genius of a musician, he is a very humble man; who does a lot to promote the careers of unknown and upcoming younger artists (which is why the tributes from young artists worldwide cannot seem to stop coming, and a display of this generous mentoring attitude, can be seen very clearly even in this recent movie you say you don't like, he is shown therein, encouraging the young Orianthi Panagaris; one of his 2 Lead Guitarists to play a particularly high guitar note, which he composes on the spot, and sings out for her (saying "...This is your moment to shine...this is your moment to shine...and we will be there for you all the while..."), thus encouraging young talent towards greatness right to the end, as he always did throughout his life. This is the side of Michael Jackson, many of us loved. He had none of all that arrogant diva attitude most big celebrities have. Even when he was clearly seriously disturbed and distracted, by the unpleasant volume of music being piped into his ears, while attempting to sing one of the old "Jackson Five Songs" (you seem to find creepy, and I really wonder why you think it is creepy for him to rehearse for a performance of one of his old "Jackson Five Songs,"? After all he has always included a few of the old "Jackson Five Songs," in his concert performances.) he gentle chides Kenny Ortega and the other musician's, without throwing any of the usual big celebrity diva fits, we have become accustomed to seing (like the tantrum thrown during a reheasal by the main star of the last Batman movie). He goes to great length not to deliver a stinging rebuke to the band by stating, "...this is with love...(spells it out with a smile) l, o, v, e,... but it feels like a fist is being shoved into my ear...I am trying to accomodate it, but it feels like a fist is being shoved into my inner ear... " I have been singing in various choirs/musical groups since I was about 7 years old, and I once had a music director hurl a huge volume of classical music at me, because I went slightly off key (and he wasn't even a celebrity), I have seen musician's with larger than life egos (in many relatively un-celebrated church bands), cuss each other out, get really mad, and walk out of rehearsals just because someone either went out of tempo, went off key, or was just having a bad day keeping up with practice, yet again and again, we see in this movie, a musician of MJ's gigantic talent, only very gently chiding members of his band when they get something wrong (or otherwise mangle their interpretation/rendition of one of his well-known songs), he never once lost his temper, and he made sure to soothe their wounded egos (because most artists are known to have very fragile egos), by always speaking softly (even if firmly) and making additional soothing remarks whenever giving necessary correction like, "this is what rehearsals are for." Meaning in essence that it is normal to make mistakes, and that is why we rehearse before a show. I wish the world had shown him the same degree of patience and understanding, he so clearly showed others during his life on this Earth. So I did appologize for unfairly tagging everyone who dislikes "This Is It," a hater of Michael Jackson (because after all I am no telepath, and the last time I checked, I cannot divine the secret thoughts or motives that lie in people's hearts), but allow us Michael Jackson fans, the indulgence of portraying in a positive light for once, someone who in my humble conviction as well as opinion, has been very unjustly mangled in the press for almost 2 decades to date. It is not abnormal for a dead person's well-wishers to sing his or her praises shortly after their death, indeed it would be quite strange if we did not do so! People should take a deep breath, step back, and wait at least one year for Michael Jackson to be mourned decently and properly, then the critical bio-pics will be made, and come marching loudly into many movie theaters across the globe. For now though, we of the universe of Michael Jackson's fans, are very much still in grieving mode, we mourn the sudden passing of our great musical icon, and it is quite unreasonable for anyone to expect us, to make a movie about him that protrays him in his worst light (even if that is what you truly think, would have improved the quality of the movie "This Is It)!

Hi MAJ, just one little additional note. I remember you wrote that MJ was a troubled individual. This was undoubtedly the case, but being a troubled individual seems to be a mark of the "True Genius." Aristotle once wrote that "...we know of two types of madness...one, the kind that makes a man to fall below himself...this type we call insanity...and secondly the other type, which makes a man to rise above himself, which we call 'genius.' There have been ample research into the nature of the "Idiot Savant," who supremely gifted in certain fields of endeavor like mathematics, painting, etc, but who remain astonishly inept at doing other things. It seems nature has to find a balance, because there is only so many gifts, she can cram into one mind. In the "Nature of Genius" that book I earlier mentioned by Dr. Andrew Germant, I learned most artistic genius as opposed to the scientific geniuses, were very troubled individuals. Mozart died young at a mere 36 years of age (some scholars say he died of syphilis), Van Gohh cut off his own ear (and is rumored to have committed suicide), Schumann most definitely committed suicide by exposing himself to a lethal case of pnemonia, Beethoven was an out and out wacko, Gaugin had his many troubles, I could go on and on... So Michael Jackson's craziness is nothing new, it comes with the "genius...territory." And even with the so-called more stable scientific geniuses who tend to marry durably, and live to a ripe old age, who is to say Albert Einstein was completely sane? Not with that wild head of hair, I won't. Being troubled is the price the usually pay for their inspiration, and we should be grateful that they bear this burden to move human culture forward so that people like me who are more ordinary, do not have to live trouble lives to advance human civilization.

There are so many typos in the above post, I just had to fix them and re-post. See the corrected version below:

Hi MAJ, just one little additional note. I remember you wrote that MJ was a troubled individual. This was undoubtedly the case, but being a troubled individual seems to be a common mark of the "True Genius." Aristotle once wrote that "...we know of two types of madness...one, the kind that makes a man to fall below himself...this type we call insanity...and secondly the other type, which makes a man to rise above himself, which we call 'genius.' There has been ample research into the nature of the "Idiot Savant," who are supremely gifted in certain fields of endeavor like mathematics, painting, etc, but who remain astonishingly inept at doing many other things. It seems nature has to find a balance, because there are only so many gifts, she can cram into one human mind. In the "Nature of Genius" that book I earlier mentioned, which was written by Dr. Andrew Germant, I learned that most artistic geniuses as opposed to the scientific geniuses, were very troubled individuals. Mozart died young at a mere 36 years of age (some scholars say he died of syphilis), Van Gohr cut off his own ear (and is rumored to have committed suicide), Schumann most definitely committed suicide by exposing himself to a lethal case of pneumonia when he jumped into that river in the middle of winter, Beethoven was an out-and-out blind genius wacko, Gaugin had his many troubles, I could go on and on... So Michael Jackson's craziness is nothing new, it comes with the "genius...territory." And even with the so-called more stable scientific geniuses who tend to marry durably, beget children, and live to a ripe old age, who is to say Albert Einstein was completely sane? Not with that wild head of hair, I won't! Or Marie Currie; who managed to kill herself, and her husband via exposure to radium (in the process of discovering X-Rays and radiation). Her daughter and son followed suit soon after, dying of radiation induced cancers as well. That definitely seems to fit the definition of living a troubled life. So it seems being troubled is one of the prices geniuses usually pay for their lofty inspiration, and we should be grateful that they bear this burden in order to move human culture forward, so that people like me who are more ordinarily gifted, do not have to live trouble lives to advance the cause of human civilization.

Wow. Is that, like, some kind of punk'd thing?

Wall of Text crits you for a googolplex. Twice.

Wall isn't adequate, it's a veritable Burj Dubai of text. John Odehus, you've come dangerously close to inventing a new form of literature, the stream-of-consciousness-bio-fanfic. I'm impressed (and a bit frightened) by the magnitude of your devotion. However, it's good to know that the movie is a nice send off for loyal fans such as yourself (as the review indicates).

Oh my.

Wow...

I mean, wow.

MaryAnn, I sincerely hope that you never accidentally run over someone's pet or commit a major felony because if you can provoke this much reaction with a mere movie review...

Come back, Tim1974. All is forgiven...

Hahahaha. John Odeh did have a lot of points in his comment that I agree with, but sadly this seems to be the wrong place to state them.
Michael fans are interesting...and it seems that there is rarely a debate that doesn't involve strong emotions [if I had been using logic, I wouldn't have written out such rash and unsupported comments as I did above].
I do feel that there has been a lot of unfair criticism against the man, but I do now realize it's feelings and not everyone would see it as fact.

I deeply appreciate your acknowledgment that this film is for fans, though. And your review that you wrote as review of the actual film and not of the man himself.

My goodness, lotseth of people loveth Michael too much.

The only MJ-related item that annoys me is that Thriller wasn't shown on MTV Halloween night. A golden opportunity squandered.

BTW: I had to Google "hagiographic." I'm so unlearned. Or is that non-learned? Fuck.

Of course. Everyone adores celebrities who go on and on about "freeing Tibet" or "saving the planet", but propose no solutions for doing so.

I mean come on guys. Let's do it. For the planet. I mean, the Earth. She's weeping. We're in it together guys. We've got to do this. For the planet.

You know, I don't resent celebrities for using their platform to talk about "doing the right thing," even if they're just speaking in platitudes. At the very least they're raising public awareness and building support, which is the first step towards fixing things.

Sure, I personally find MJ's songs about saving the planet a little vague and schlocky. But do you really have anything against saving the planet? At least maybe he'll convince his legion of fans to be more environmentally conscious, and to vote in leaders who'll make a difference.

Everyone adores celebrities who go on and on about "freeing Tibet" or "saving the planet", but propose no solutions for doing so.

Bluejay does get it. It really does raise awareness in some fans.

Oops, sorry for the next-to-last comment. I just now realised that not everyone will see TII or know of what Michael has said. I just wanted to state what I have seen in friends that are huge fans of his.

Lord have mercy - some people just have WAY too much time on their hands, dontcha think?

And in addition to being illiterate, they are also apparently incapable of distinguishing between reality and PR. He was a CELEBRITY. Everything he allowed to be seen about him was meticulously tailored, and everything else was carefully spun.

Here's another shocker - brace yourself, John - those guys who wear the white coats in TV ads for drugs? NOT REAL DOCTORS!!!

I'm still looking for the Bel-Air in John Odeh's posts.

No, really, this review sucked. This was long. The Old English wasn't even done right. This wasn't your best.

I love it when a thread proves the author's initial post even more than the post itself could.

MaryAnn, the chair *is* your son!

Prepare to be offended.

Mary Ann, worry not. I have a feeling that if The Glorious Church of the Princess Bride combined forces with Areaologists, The Trek Cult, the Jedi Contingency and the Whedonites we could totally take The Church of the Latter Day Michael.

Of course, being an Areaologist could prove explosive with this crowd... *Puts on her pink hard-hat and waits.*

Ah yes, the deification of Michael Jackson.

Some perspective. The only reason folks even know who Michael Jackson is, is because of circumstances of promotion and luck decades ago. As is their tendency, people like to ascribe superlatives to a particular performer - genius, the greatest this, wonderfulest that, etc. There were and are trainloads of others just as or more talented, he just happens to be the one you heard about.

When he was a kid he was photogenic and had good little kid vocal chops. Had he not had the momentum of his childhood stardom, I sincerely doubt his adult vocals on their own would have gained much notoriety. Listen to his later performances of his earlier hits. Unlike someone like say Donny Osmond, MJ's voice didn't transition into adulthood well. Not just the lowered pitch but the general vibrance and timbre of his childhood vocals was absent. As for his later albums, his adult vocals became mostly a series of growling yells and stabs, or alternately odd, affected vibrato, falsetto and sound effects - *EEEE-HEEEE*, few sustained notes and deeply embedded in processing and effects along with strong production and orchestration that was the work of others. He certainly wasn't on par with vocalists like Steven Perry, Kenny Loggins, Bobby Kimball (fromToto), James Ingram, Michael Bolton, Gary Puckett, etc. or any of an ocean of unheralded studio session singers. Jackson's voice was recognizeable, but was it great? Not as far as I'm concerned.

But his relative talents aside, a question for the "adoring fans" - how would you feel about a guy in the neighborhood who had butchered himself surgically like that, who in his 30's & 40's was in the habit of hosting sleepovers with prepubescent boys, and who it was learned had numerous photos of shirtless young boys adorning his house. If it was your kid's teacher what would you think about it? Wouldn't raise any concerns at all, right? "Hey mom, Mr. Jones wants me and a bunch of other boys to sleep at his house in his room tonight, okay?"

So, why does the fact that he happens to be a media star suspend any such concerns? It speaks to the whole over-valuing of celebrity - entertainment, sports etc. in the first place. Would any of these people who hung around his house including his eventual accusers be there if he wasn't famous? How much did they actually know about him personally? Not much I'll wager.

If nothing else he's guilty of colossally bad judgment for not getting any of this to begin with. Settling out of court certainly doesn't reinforce one's claims of innocence, but if he was wrongly accused the first time, why would he continue to put himself in a postion to be a target of opportunists? He did that interiew with Ed Bradley - much like candid interviews with others seeking to clear their name like Gary Condit, Paul "Pee Wee Herman" Reubens, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, it didn't do a thing to make him look better. Look for Chris Rock's hilarious take on YouTube.

Jackson had credibility issues - he was apparently less than forthcoming regarding certain topics. Why the whole charade regarding "his" kids? They clearly have no biological connection to him despite his insistence to the contrary. If he had them via surrogacy, probably not something that would generally be thought of as sinister in of itself, but the origin of these kids seems to have been in the service of some other agenda - i.e. "proving" his normalcy and masculinity - yet apparently figured no one would notice that the kids are clearly not even part black. I'm skeptical of the vitiligo thing - certainly the extent of it and that he denied taking measures to lighten his skin. He suddenly developed a whole body case of vitiligo? Rather, his overall goal appears to have been to obliterate outward signs of his ethnicity.

However they promote it, this movie is primarily about cashing in, as it would seem is the supposedly upcoming "Tribute concert".