Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

katiewon OMG - this is UNWATCHABLE. Words cannot describe it (except Michael's that I quoted above). I love his music, and I can respect what he went through being famous at such a young age, so yeah he has issues - but the way this movie is written and acted it seems the whole purpose was to focus on his dysfunctions in brief snippets that tell us nothing, which is a shame because no one is so one-dimensional. And who is this "Bobby" guy? Useless, that's what he was. I am also a Lisa Marie Presley fan, and the young woman who played her was not even close! Lisa Marie is so much prettier, spunky, and smart - whereas the woman playing her was blah. The first time I saw her I laughed outloud. And yes, the mother has a limp and yet, the woman playing her walks perfectly! Even the most casual MJ/Jackson 5 fan knows that! If the writer, director and actors were simply trying to scam VH1 for a few bucks, in that way they succeeded. Someone should revoke all their writing/directing/acting credentials for this abomination! The Jacksons: An American Dream is far superior.

gothamite27 I only discovered this film after searching through Wikipedia for information on Michael Jackson (which is most certainly what millions of others are doing, in the wake of his highly publicized death).The film is an exploration, not of Michael Joseph Jackson's life, but of his fame; particularly following the Earth-shattering success of 'Thriller'. It mostly skims over these years (but then, just about everything in the film feels 'skimmed over'), but there are some interesting developments, such as the beginning of Michael's supposed troubles with the vitiligo disease as well as the infamous Pepsi Cola accident, where he was badly burned (this serves as a segue into Jackson's near-obsession with cosmetic surgery).The majority of this biopic is based in the 1990s and portrays in brief, the countless occasions where the media clashed with Michael Jackson, particularly the child-abuse allegations of 1993. His friendship with Liz Taylor is decently established (although the actress is sub-par) and throughout the film, Michael's kinship with someone by the name of 'Bobby' (who I can only assume is his bodyguard or housekeeper or something) is probably the highlight of the film (along with something that I shall mention later on in the review). Michael's relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Rowe, the two wives he had in the 90s are explored with the former being an impressive recount (if slightly historically inaccurate, if accounts from Presley herself are to be believed) and the latter being a pathetic footnote. The film concludes with Michael being accused once more of child abuse, and choosing to fight the charges (rather than trying to avoid them, as he did in 1993).This is not a very well-made biopic. It is not 'Walk the Line' or 'Ray' and I would hesitate to say that it is even as good as TV movie-biopics such as 'The David Cassidy Story'. It employs very 'hip' directorial methods, that one would expect from CSI and other such programming. The acting ranges from above-average (Flex Alexander is quite good) to absolutely dire (the actress who played Janet). The most noteworthy criticism is the make-up, which was uncomfortably off throughout the film. The film makes some efforts to show Jackson's transition from the fresh-faced, very black young man of 'Thriller' to the tanned (but still obviously African American) 27-year-old of the 'Bad' era to the ghost-faced Jackson of the 1990s. For some reason, the film awkwardly chooses to keep Flex Alexander in the 'Bad'-era makeup throughout most of the second act of the film, throughout years where Jackson was very obviously not black (such as his marriage to Presley, for example). This takes viewers who are even only slightly somewhat familiar with the man's history out of the experience. It makes little sense when Flex Alexander goes from being a black man with some chalk lightly pasted on his face to being a very, very white man with features that have been utterly, surgically overhauled.In all honesty however, the film has some very interesting ideas about Jackson and its ending is almost a saving grace in how it ties together two of the most recurring themes of the film: Michael's fear of failure (in the eyes of his father and the media) and his undying love and respect for his fans, the people who would never leave him. It is clear that the ending was probably the one very clear idea the writers and director had while making this very obviously rushed, low-budget film and it stands out as a noteworthy highlight for a fairly mediocre film.In conclusion, fans of Jackson could do worse than to watch this biopic, particularly those who mourn his passing. Taken with a pinch of salt, this is a fairly decent film with interesting ideas.

km_macleod92 when I first started to watch this movie i really started to like it, it showed that Michael Jackson had no child hood and had a father that was pretty hard on him. then later in his life he was accused of child abuse, because of this he lost a lot of fans.(as you all probably know by know) i believe Michael Jackson and would support him in his defense( if i could) however another thing i liked about this film is that they showed that they didn't make this film because for people to believe Micheal Jackson.the one thing that i did not like about this film is that i never really had an end. there was a problem(Jacksons father) then it was sovoled (moving to never land) then there was another problem( the child abuse) then there was another problem (Jacksons wife) then it sorta just needed right there. well they did have a nice scene at the end when Michael is on top of his car. so then we go back to the summary 'what is wrong with this movie?'is it the fact that it never had an end?? or is it the fact that it was too long or too short??in my opinion this is a very good movie for its genre and it almost feels a little bit more respectful to like it."you don't use the media, the media uses you"

cherubim10 If any of you have seen the horror of "See Arnold Run", you know what I'm talking about. Take a superstar, someone who EVERYBODY knows what they look like, how they walk, talk, and sound, and try to make a movie about them, WITHOUT them. It is a very, very hard thing to do. This movie pulls it off the best it can possibly be done, in my opinion. It tells the sometimes sad story of Michael's hard life, from Thriller on to today. Once you're into it, you almost see Flex Alexander as Michael Jackson, forgetting the real Michael's face and voice, if only for a little while. While utilizing absolutely none of Michael's music, the movie still has you in his world. It's totally ambiguous, never saying Michael is guilty, while also never quite saying he's innocent. At the end of this movie, I honestly felt really bad for Michael Jackson. It gave me great insight into his world, and I think this movie is a must-see before anyone starts bashing him.