sarahthiel-86261

What upsets me the most about this movie is that it's being called a 'documentary'. By definition a documentary is "a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject." Leaving Neverland is non of that. Not once does the movie (I'm going to call it 'movie' from now on, because that's what it is.) provide any official document from either James Safechuck's or Wade Robson's lawsuit. It doesn't provide one piece of evidence that supports their claims of being sexual abused by Michael Jackson. (James Safechuck has a box of jewelry that Michael Jackson allegedly gave to him for sexual acts. However, no proof that it was given to him as a child.) On top of that, we're only hearing on side of the story. Over and over again. Director Dan Reed recently admitted in an interview that he didn't want to interview others, because it would complicate the story. That's absolutely unethical considering that Leaving Neverland implies that Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes were Robson's and Safechuck's "replacement". Culkin and Barnes vehemently deny that they were ever abused by Jackson. This movie is basically four hours of two families blaming every family problem they ever had on Michael Jackson and two men painting a whole different picture of Jackson as an abuser. (Safechuck describes him as a paranoid abuser that coached him how to put on his clothes as fast as he could in case someone catches them during the abuse, whereas Robson claims that he was abused everytime they were together and even when his mum was next door.) What this film does have is drone shots of random places (mostly not related to what they are talking about) and random pictures of Michael Jackson in a red shirt. If they cut these drone shots and red-shirt-pictures the movie would have been over in two hours. My conclusion: it's not worth anybody's time. The length is absolutely not justified and this whole movie is based on the word of two perjurers.