Michael Jackson’s This Is It (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

The Gospel of Kenny


(for true disciples of Michael)

(for everyone else)

In the Year of the Gloved One 50, which was also called in the old calendar 2009, the people of the town of London came unto Michael with much wailing and despair. “Michael!” they beseeched Him. “Bestow upon us Your awesomeness. Bestow upon us the wisdom of Your spirit, and telleth us once again how Billie Jean is not Your lover and the kid is not Your son, for we long to be reassured. Giveth unto us 50 shows, one for each year of Your beneficence.”

And Michael heard their pleas, and thought them good, and with the multitudes of lawyers and agents and publicists and other devotees at His side did sign the contracts that would make it so.
And Michael came to this humble servant, and said, “Kenny Ortega, you have given unto the world the 2002 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony and the glory that is High School Musical. You will make a Show with Me that will bringeth tears of joy to the people, and will showeth them that the spectacles of 3D and CGI can be encorporatedeth into a stage performance, and will beat it, beat it good.” And Michael, in His all-knowingness, knew that it would be His last of shows, and that the tears of joy would also be tears of grief, and this He declared for all his followers to know. And Michael, in his all-lovingness, did stay silent on the taking from us of His presence that was to come, lest He aggrieve us before the time was upon us.

And did the nameless supplicants flyeth in from around the world, 5,000 in number, from such distant realms as Australia, and without 21-day advance airline purchases, such was the overwhelmingness of their love for Michael. And did they weep tears of joy to beith in the presence of Michael, and did they dance their supple young bodies in His sight, expressing their ecstasy, and were they all but 11 of them turnethed away from His company, and returned broken into the Michael-less void. And did the 11 become His final disciples of dance.

And did the makers of music praise Michael for His generosity in sharing His songs with they who were not worthy to play them yet must play them still, and for His knowledge of His own songs, and for His ability to hear music that no one else could hear, such was His magnificence. And did they worship Him for having guided them since childhood toward the raising of their voices in euphoric song and the raising of their guitar licks in blissful noise. And did they become His final disciples of music.

And many were the cameras present to record the creative process, and His patience, and His love, and His faith, even when the disciples did screweth up. And always, Michael soothed them, “This is why we have rehearsals.” And His words had a calming effect on them, and they loved Him all the more.

And all the many whiles did Michael sayeth only to this humble servant, “This will be good for the DVD” or “This will be a wicked cool making-of featurette” or “Long have the people yearned to understand the choreography of the crotch grab, and now they will know it good.” And never did He sayeth, “You will assemble this footage one day into the final great Praising of me,” for so all-encompassing was His love that He did not wish to cause sorrow amidst the jubilation of hip grinding and choreographed gang rumbles and sound checks, or amidst the uncomfortable invoking of the 1970s-era Jackson 5, which we pretendethed was joyful and not kinda creepy in how it remindeth us of what a cute little munchkin Michael was in his youth.

But lo the great and secret burden Michael bore for us all did come to pass, and He passed from among us. And how this humble servant did wail, and how this humble servant did weep, until this humble servant rememberethed the 80 hours of footage at his fingertips.

Beholdeth the real Michael! Beholdeth how Michael takes the suffering of the world onto Himself, and how He worrieth about the children and the butterflies and the monkeys and the trees, and how He standeth before the Bulldozer of Destruction! Seeth thou how strong Michael was in His last days, and forgeteth thou the unpleasant autopsy and toxicology reports. Seeth how Michael was a man and yet not a man, a man and yet a seraph of spirit and light and moonwalking. Seeth how He was beyond mortality, and shall liveth forever.

Here endeth the Gospel of Kenny.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
99 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
anonymous
anonymous
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:14am

This review sucketh.

IdiotMaryAnn
IdiotMaryAnn
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:32am

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

CCofGA
CCofGA
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:17am

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.

Kim
Kim
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:20am

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?

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:51am

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

markyd
markyd
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:14am

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.

Bored Spitless
Bored Spitless
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:31am

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

Chris
Chris
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:00am

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.

Chris
Chris
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:12am

I think it’s interesting that the comments have kind of proved your point…

bitchen frizzy
bitchen frizzy
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:13am

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.

David
David
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:35am

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

(ps Fun review ^_^)

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:47am

Weird how people think I’m reviewing Michael Jackson, and not this movie *about* Michael Jackson.

Or maybe it’s not so weird. It’s astonishing how few people can read above a fourth grade level.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:49am

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

I don’t understand how whether I might enjoy performing oral sex on a partner I wanted to especially please would impact my review of a movie. Could someone explain?

CB
CB
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:15am

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.

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:34am

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.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 11:56am

Clever! I get it: it’s hagiographic because Michael Jackson fans like him too much.

No. It’s hagiographic because it’s hagiographic.

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 12:00pm

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

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

misterb
misterb
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 12:18pm

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.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 12:35pm

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.

John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:56pm

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!

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 2:56pm

“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.

John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:07pm

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!

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:14pm

He’s daring you. Isn’t that adorable?

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:49pm

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

Frank
Frank
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:54pm

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.”

John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:23pm

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.

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:46pm

___________________________________________________

“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.

bitchen frizzy
bitchen frizzy
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53pm

–“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?

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:11pm

________________________________________

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.

bitchen frizzy
bitchen frizzy
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:22pm

–“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.

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:36pm

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.

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:43pm

*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.

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:04pm

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.

Paul
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:21pm

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.

amanohyo
amanohyo
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:47pm

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?

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:54pm

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.

differentname
differentname
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:12pm

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

John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
John Odeh aka Johnnus Odehus
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:20pm

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.

Accounting Ninja
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:05pm

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.

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:15pm

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.

Paul
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:24pm

@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.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:56pm

There is an ugly beauty in this thread, in how it confirms how small the capability of thinking critically is with too many people.

For the record — not that it should matter — I am actually a fan of Michael Jackson. I think *Thriller* is a brilliant album. I think Jackson was clearly very talented, if also very troubled.

But I’m astonished — I shouldn’t be, but I am — at how some people cannot distinguish between the subject of a film and how that subject is presented by a film. I’m astonished at how people do not understand how the choosing of certain bits of film footage over others can create an impression that may not reflect reality.

Some people are not just illiterate when it comes to reading words, they’re illiterate when it comes to reading film and TV, too.

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.

And NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with whether Jackson actually *is* worthy of such worship, or whether he actually *was* so a talented performer. This movie simply assumes that he was, assumes that he was almost godlike. And that is the movie’s perogative to make that assumption. But it is also the perogative of the viewer to call bullshit on that perogative.

Lawschool_Douchebag
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:20pm

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!

Lawschool_Douchebag
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:37pm

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.

Lawschool_Douchebag
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:41pm

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

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 8:03am

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.

different name
different name
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 11:23am

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!

ManicAsh
ManicAsh
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 12:40pm

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.

Accounting Ninja
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 12:55pm

@ 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. :)

Lando Calrissian
Lando Calrissian
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 1:58pm

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.