This is not a documentary about Michael Jackson. Of course, he's the center of attention and obviously this story is about him being a child molester. But the story goes much beyond that. It is a very important documentary that I engage everyone to watch. Even though it lasts for four hours, it feels very short, because the story is so captivating and sad at the same time. Of course, we can talk about Michael Jackson and I can tell you that after watching the documentary, I know in my bones that he raped children. And then what? The man is dead and the lives he ruined will forever have to live with that. I think the more interesting aspect is that this story tells what child abuse is. I always pictured in my mind that childhood abuse was a relative crawling in the dark and forcing a young child to perform sexual acts. The reality is much more different and much more complex. In this story, there is seduction from the molester, who talks about love. The fact that he was the biggest superstar ever exacerbates all those feelings. It took me a couple of days to process that and I really admire James Safechuck and Wade Robson for their courage. And yes, Michael Jackson was a monster. A monster with a smile. The worst kinds of monsters. I loved Michael Jackson's music deeply, I think we'll never see such a megastar in our lifetime. I think I will never again listen to his songs because you cannot not associate his music with his character. He could have had endless sex with adults and do orgies, I would not even care. But he forever destroyed lives of little children that are now adults and will forever suffer. Watching a picture of the young Jimmy or Wade brings tears to my face. I hope telling the truth will help them navigate in their difficult lives. My full review is on TVore.com for those who are interested.

Ok, thanks- I'm getting mixed messages about these people, and this documentary- I've heard plenty of people saying the opposite of what you've said, but I've also heard many reviews saying what you've said- thanks for replying though- I might watch it soon

I wondered if Jordy Chandler was also in the doc. He was the first child that Michael was accused of molesting and he and his family settled out of court. I read that the filmmaker did try to find him, but could never track him down. He only found his sister, but she said she was only 5 when they knew Michael, so she didn't remember much of anything.

@Joeisacoolguy said:

Ok, thanks- I'm getting mixed messages about these people, and this documentary- I've heard plenty of people saying the opposite of what you've said, but I've also heard many reviews saying what you've said- thanks for replying though- I might watch it soon

People attacking those two men should be ashamed. Imagine not only being molested as a child and then finally opening about it and being attacked by some fans of Michael Jackson. Of course, it must be very difficult for long time fans of Jackson to have to understand that their idol was a child molester. But the truth is more important than anything else.

@Stand*Chickie said:

I wondered if Jordy Chandler was also in the doc. He was the first child that Michael was accused of molesting and he and his family settled out of court. I read that the filmmaker did try to find him, but could never track him down. He only found his sister, but she said she was on 5 when they knew Michael, so she didn't remember much of anything.

Indeed, he’s not in the documentary. I think the great aspect of the film is that it does not focus on just one child, but two. Two stories that you simply cannot deny.

@TVore said:

@Joeisacoolguy said:

Ok, thanks- I'm getting mixed messages about these people, and this documentary- I've heard plenty of people saying the opposite of what you've said, but I've also heard many reviews saying what you've said- thanks for replying though- I might watch it soon

People attacking those two men should be ashamed. Imagine not only being molested as a child and then finally opening about it and being attacked by some fans of Michael Jackson. Of course, it must be very difficult for long time fans of Jackson to have to understand that their idol was a child molester. But the truth is more important than anything else.

I agree, but I'm reserving absolute judgement till I've watched it all the way through- and on the whole, I agree with Corey Feldman

Of course, you really have to watch the film. But clearly, after watching this film, not believing that Michael Jackson was a child molester is like believing that the Earth is flat.

@Invidia said:

The IMAGE of BURNING UP the GLOVE, and the THRILLER JACKET, and all of the OTHER MOMENTOS at the end of the Documentary was also pretty FREAKY. Looked kind of like JACKSON was standing there in HELL with the FLAMES shooting up around the ICONIC IMAGES of him.

I thought that was interesting end credits scene too, but for three reasons. First, because the things that he was burning would presumed to be of great value. I would think they were not "off-the-shelf" MJ products, but rather items he had gotten from him directly. Second, because it was him cleansing MJ from his own life. This is quite common--and therapeutic--and shows a conviction to move forward...things can't be retrieved from the flames. Lastly, as you said, it serves as a none-too-subtle artistic 'final' judgment scene. Not only perhaps flames of Hell, but a final statement from the film makers themselves by including it.

I suppose it would depend on if you believe the allegations or not. And perhaps that is the point: if you believe the victims then the items (and all others whether or not tied directly to abuse) are worthless; if you don't some would call them "priceless." Oh, and people are nuts, so I'm sure there are many--especially hard core MJ fans--who would be horrified to see any property he touched being destroyed.

I never asked if the property was valuable... I said is the documentary convincing? You lot are waffling, I'm sorry to say

Yeah, that part was fine, but then you lot went on and on about possessions, which, yes, was waffling, and I have watched it too- I don't know what my final verdict is, but those posts didn't help

@Joeisacoolguy said:

Yeah, that part was fine, but then you lot went on and on about possessions, which, yes, was waffling, and I have watched it too- I don't know what my final verdict is, but those posts didn't help

Sorry about that. We did get a bit off-topic. I should have quoted @Invidia rather than just replied to the main. Still a good conversation though, and I do think that the destruction of (what some would perceive as valuable) property/mementos could lend to the authenticity of the allegations. For instance, it slightly refutes the idea that the accusers are just trying to get cash from the estate, thereby making their claims just a bit more believable.

To answer your question directly: I found it quite convincing.

Just to be absolutely clear here. I'm not advocating for either side. I found the boys statements compelling, and I'm not particularly a MJ fan either. However, one needs to look at things beyond the screen.

I saw the whole doc, and the main problem underlying all the evidence the boys gave was: money. They or their families were either paid-off near the time (often with gifts, travel, stays, or other trinkets), or later on when they wanted to sue him they received pay-offs to not proceed. And even now, while they aren't going to get payouts from the MJ estate seemingly (at least they've not pursued this, though that could be related to previous settlements), like anything or anyone that garners media attention, there is money to be made from the aftermath (paid-for interviews, renewed interest in their current careers, books, etc.).
To be clear, I'm not saying they weren't right to settle previously, as the shear costs involved in legal fees for court cases and potential financial fallout if losing the case, would be horrendous for the average family to deal with. So taking a settlement is a risk mitigation exercise, rather than admission of anything else.

However, this is the same reason C/D/E-list celebrities do reality TV series; they get fairly modest paycheques for the actual show (or occasionally none at all, if charity related), but then earn the real money off the short-lived tail-end of media interviews, books, follow-on job opportunities, etc. While this doc and the boys themselves made clear no payment was received for doing this doc, that doesn't proscribe them doing so later on.

Of course, if they were molested then one would never proscribe them from doing so either. But this is the trouble with virtually all claims against rich and famous celebs; it works both ways. The celeb could sexually abuse victims and afford to pay each off every time (it's happened throughout history for various issues), while conversely, any person in private contact with any celeb could falsely accuse them of sexual abuse and ask for money to keep the whole troublesome affair out of the media spotlight, or at least for as short a time as possible, so it doesn't adversely affect said celebs future career (again, this has happened throughout history for various issues, too).

Why is this? Because often, many of the celebs potential audience for their work may jump to conclusions and turn their backs on the said celebs work, thus celeb's career fails regardless of facts being true or not, or whether court cases go in their favour or not. It's this dichotomy that means celebs pay out-of-court settlements, pay huge amounts to employ PR agents to pursue both positive and negate the negative, and (for some at least) try to keep their private life as private as possible (regardless of any openness they may appear to show in public, on so-called fly-on-wall reality shows, or elsewhere).

Do not underestimate people's willingness to sell-out their morals on the media gravy-train to garner attention for monetary gain.
It's a sickening world we live in where money and some people's willingness for attention to garner it, makes believing either side, almost an impossible situation. But regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, it's the reality of the world we live in. Either side could be right or wrong, but without physical evidence (now long gone due to time), there is simply no way of knowing who is telling the truth and who isn't.

@Daddie0 said:

@Joeisacoolguy said:

Yeah, that part was fine, but then you lot went on and on about possessions, which, yes, was waffling, and I have watched it too- I don't know what my final verdict is, but those posts didn't help

Sorry about that. We did get a bit off-topic. I should have quoted @Invidia rather than just replied to the main. Still a good conversation though, and I do think that the destruction of (what some would perceive as valuable) property/mementos could lend to the authenticity of the allegations. For instance, it slightly refutes the idea that the accusers are just trying to get cash from the estate, thereby making their claims just a bit more believable.

To answer your question directly: I found it quite convincing.

Ok thanks!

@Joeisacoolguy said:

I haven't watched it, I'm debating whether I will or not, but how convincing is it? Because I've noticed most articles rule in favour of Mr Robson and Mr Safechuck, while plenty of people I know are still ruling in favour of MJ

The people who are ruling in favor of Michael have not watched the film.