jlbmussy

This is a must see documentary. It is well put together for a 30 min run time. The film is a full rebuttal to another film which calls itself Leaving Neverland. Leaving neverland claims to be a non fiction documentary. but it is anything but. "Lies of" reveals how scandalous leaving neverland is.. how it manipulated viewers. How there are inconsistencies,. More shockingly it shows how the men changed their stories.. In a nutshell you must watch this to understand why you CAN NOT believe anything in Leaving Neverland.

An important must see documentary. Fully detailed step by step to learn the truth. People have been so misinformed by the 93 allegation yet it is primarily because of this allegation that people believe the others..The quote in this doc is true "ONCE YOU REALISE THIS ALLEGATION IS FALSE THE REST CRUMBLE" Why because when you truly examine this allegation in fine detail all the others are a copycat of his story. For the first time ever Danny Wu sets the record straight. The 93 allegation is also known as "The boy he payed off" yet another reason which concreted people's belief of guilt. Danny Wu details and educates on the real reason MJ had to settle. Once we understand the pay off we fully gets to grips on how much MJ was wronged, not just in 93 but for years after, even today. We have been fed a bunch of lies by the mass media who openly admit they can make blown up story from a grain of nothing.. I conclude from watching this documentary there is only one victim and his name is Michael Jackson. .

Opinions from people who knew MJ matter, People who have fully researched MJ and the case matter. This is something that was completely lacking in the leaving Neverland film . I find it bizarre that some have marked this film low and called it Bias yet you can bet those same people watched the one sided Leaving neverland and did not question how bias and one sided it was. This 1hr film needed to be bias as It was a response to LN, it provides proof to all the misgivings and lies that was shown in the Leaving Neverland film. Why are 1 star markers so surprised It's bias? Hypocritical to use it as a negative given the LN film. I liked that this film used documentation to prove facts. I also liked the input from people who knew him well, who knew the circumstances surrounding MJ at the time and can give insight into why the allegations against him are impossible.

I conclude Michael Jackson is and always was completely Innocent.

Leaving Neverland film ( not a documentary) is intended to be powerful. It cannot be a documentary because there is only one side in the film.. What you'll note after watching the film is there is literally no evidence, only their word. They do however add cleverly add imagery perfectly time with a sad theme tune to match to intensify their story, They make it seem these two men sat for a few hours each and told their story. In reality testimony was recorded over 2 years. The intense editing, perfectly timed imagery along with the sad theme tune all help bring it together to suck you in..

Here is one example of clever editing, A part in the film James is interviewing MJ after they had both been on a trip to Hawaii organised by Pepsi. James asks MJ what did he like most about Hawaii, Major fraud here, the director cut the recording so MJ's response was "The thing I liked most is being with Jimmy", as a viewer you're thinking. wow that's not right. In fact what MJ actually said was " The thing I liked most was being with jimmy and his family". Doesn't that sound more innocent?. why the need to cut the last bit? isn't the director meant to be portraying the truth?..

You'll also note the only time you see anyone cry in the film it is actually unrelated to any abuse. They cry for other reasons but the director cleverly put this in a sequence so it all fits in quite nicely with the abuse claims.

Oh and there's a Birthday video. They made it seem like a personal wish just to Wade. In fact it's a one fits all video which got sent to everyone. This video was actually recorded 7 months after Wade's birthday.If you watch the clip closely the " Hello Wade" is added then you see a cut to the main clip. All these little things were added in the film to give the belief of a very personal relationship.

Oh James showing of rings which he claim he was givien by MJ and they even had a mock wedding.. This small section of footage was cut and edited over a 2 year period? Evidence of this on you tube. The background changes, one minute it's day then night. The film gives the impression it was all one sequence doesn't it?. You have to ask why. You have to also ask why did he keep alleged abuser rings?, Why do he also keep abusers love letters?. James Safechuck said they wrote down wedding vows, where are these vows? He kept everything else but not this. The one bit of evidence which could prove what he is saying is truthful. Wouldn't Michael Jackson also have kept his vows, why were these not found a Neverland?

Both Wade and James claim they received love letters from MJ yet MJ's nieces and nephews showed they all received letters of a similar context. In fact they confirmed MJ sent these type of notes to everyone. After his family revealed this info These letters were only mentioned in the UK airing but the director cut showing the letters. It was removed from the UK version

Dan Reed ( the director) claimed he fact checked for 18 months and yet there are multiple things proven false, (as shown above and by the following lies by Wade and James).

Wade's lies

Lie 1, Wade claim he was abused from the second night, His sister and mother both testified under oath at the 2005 trial that Chantel ( the sister) stayed in MJ's room too the entire week.

lie 2, Wade claims his family went to the grand canyon and left him behind with MJ, this is the part where wade claims MJ cried which made wade stay behind, It's also when he claims MJ abused him the entire time his family were away. . Not true. .his mother testified under oath in 1994 and again mum and sister testified under oath in 2005, that all the family including Wade went to the grand canyon. In fact Joy (his mother) also confirms the only time she left Wade alone with MJ was when there was the slumber party where both macaulay culkin and Jordy Chandler stayed too.

Lie 3, Wade claims majority of his abused happened between the ages 7-9. Joy (Wade's mum confirms in a video interview they didn't move to the US until Wade was 9. so apparently MJ was able to abuse him while they lived on opposite sides of the world.

lie 4, Wade claims he was abused by MJ 100's of times, yet his mum admits in an TV interview and under oath in trial they rarely see MJ when they moved to the US , she confirms Wade only work for him on 3 music videos. They also confirm in the 2005 trial that in the 25 years they've known MJ he has only been present at neverland 4 times.

Lie 5. Wade claims he didn't want to testify and received a subpoena so he had no choice .. Fact, he was never given a subpoena, In actual fact he volunteered to testify.

Lie 6. In the US uncut version of the film Wade mentions a Christmas dinner he had with MJ and the kids (before the trial). he claims when he see the state MJ was in he knew he had to testify. This dinner never happened until after the trial. Confirmed by Taj Jackson, and brett barnes who also attended this meal.

James Lies.

Lie 1, James claims during the bad tour in 1988, which he described as the "honeymoon period" MJ took him to Disney land Paris. Disney land Paris didn't open until 1992

Lie 2, James claims MJ abused him when he took him to the Grammy's in New York where MJ preformed in 1989. MJ did not attend or even preform at the Grammy's in 1989

Lie 3, James claims MJ spent thanks giving dinner with him and his family in 87 but MJ was on the other side of the world in Oz on the bad tour.

Lie 4, James claims he was abused "daily" at the neverland train station when they were "first dating" in 88, yet the train station wasn't build until 1994, James claims abused stopped in 1992

Lie 5, James also claimed he was abused in the teepee's which also wasn't there.

Lie 6, James says he was abused in the swimming pool despite the fact the whole pool is surrounded by cameras

Lie 7a. James said the private room in the move theatre where he says he was abused had two way mirrors so people couldn't see in.. in fact not true b, His mother claims she tried to open the theatre room one time and found it locked with MJ and James inside. In fact this door cannot be locked from the inside.

Lie 8, James claim MJ rang him in 2005 twice begging him to testify at the trial, he said when he refused MJ threatened him, he said he could report him for perjuring himself. Two problems here. A, James was declared a nonentity, it was decided 8 months before the trial that nothing about James would ever be included in this case ( it is too historic). B, makes no sense why would MJ threaten to report him because if he did he's be incriminating himself

I conclude all in all a very fraudulent film.

I am a keen lover of horror movies This didn't tick any boxes for me. I decided to give it a go when i read the reviews. They made it sound promising, Noted some reviews stated it had good jump value. I didn't find this at all. You knew it was coming before it happen, too predictable. Good jump value should totally take you by surprise without warning, this didn't. I mean for example every knows in horror movies when someone looks in a mirror the monster is going appear behind them right? well that's what it was like in this. We have got so used to this we are prepared for the scare that's meant to make us jump. I found this was the case all throughout the film. There isn't much of a story to the film either, it is based purely on scare factor which it lacks. The main character also doesn't seem scarred by their situation which also makes it lack any tension. I found the whole film dull and boring

I'm not going to knock the incredible injustice. The story itself is not boring it's just the way they told which was dull, it just put me to sleep. They also repeatedly showed reenactments of the crime. I keep thinking something different is going to happen from the last time they showed it but no. I don't get why they had to keep showing the same thing over and over. Even those telling the story kept repeating what they'd already said. I am sure this could have been made into a 30 minute documentary if everything wasn't repeated. I really struggled to stay awake watching this. I am very surprised it's got such a high rating. The only positive I can say is it will probably make a good movie.

I'll start with a negative and move on. The plot summery of this movie didn't appeal to me. Generally I find movies where characters either lose their mind or become drug dependent unpleasant to watch so I avoid. Given the good ratings though I put this aside and gave it ago. I'm glad I did. This movie is incredible. The first 15/20 minutes I did find a bit slow but that's just me. I need to be hooked from the offset otherwise I start drifting. Once the story developed I found every second compelling. The visual effects are neat and adds to stimulate your own mind rather than the film itself. This film is clever in that it puts you in the mind of the character and you understand every thought they are thinking. By the end of this movie I was so engulfed and on the edge of my seat. Each character faces horrific circumstances but hey isn't this the moral of the story to brainwash the fact that drugs are bad. I enjoyed this film so much I watched the whole lot again immediately after, also taking in the first 15 minutes which I regrettably drifted from the first time round. Highly recommended

It seems like I'm alone in my opinion but I preferred the American remake. Let me start by saying I didn't realize it was a remake. Maybe this is why I have more respect for it. I watched this film when it first came out in 93 and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was chilling, it hit all the right notes and kept me on the edge of my seat.Scary stuff! Another commenter wrote this film unlike the original is easily forgettable. Not true. I've always remembered this film and have watched it numerous times. A few days ago I learned this film wasn't the original. I watched the original today and can't see what all the fuss is about. Yes it was good but It's about 95% the same so I'm confused by all the dislikes of this remake. Yes they had different endings but the ending of the American version did not ruin the film in my opinion. It was just different. I thought Jeff Bridges was a more convincing psycho then the original. I also thought keifer Sutherland was a more convincing boyfriend too. Then there's also the bonus of not having to read subtitles.. Yes next time i want to watch this movie again it will definitely be this version.