lacuentaitunesusa
A rejoint févr. 2020
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours d’élaboration. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines des fonctionnalités manquantes reviendront bientôt. Restez à l’écoute pour leur retour. En attendant, des notes est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur de profil. Pour voir votre ou vos distributions d’évaluation par année et genre, veuillez consulter notre nouvelle section Guide d’aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires2
Évaluation de lacuentaitunesusa
More of the same, the same garbage without any foundation as in the first part. If you like to waste time and have an empty head, it's for you.
"Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson" - An Exercise in Sensationalism and Repetition
Dan Reed returns to the charge with Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson, a sequel that not only lacks informative value, but also insists on exploiting a worn narrative without providing strong evidence or new perspectives. More than a serious documentary, this production seems like a desperate attempt to remain relevant at the expense of the memory of Michael Jackson, without any kind of impartiality or journalistic rigor.
Repetitive and without new content
If the first Leaving Neverland was already criticized for its lack of verifiable evidence and its obvious bias, this second part does nothing more than recycle the same testimonies without adding anything substantial. Wade Robson and James Safechuck repeat their accusations, but without providing additional documentation or evidence to support their statements, which makes this "documentary" a redundant monologue.
Total lack of balance and objectivity
A serious documentary should present different perspectives, but Leaving Neverland 2 completely ignores any opinion that does not fit with its narrative. There are no interviews with impartial experts, with lawyers in the case, with Jackson's family or with people who lived with the artist. The absence of any attempt at contrast or rigorous investigation shows that this is not a documentary, but a propaganda pamphlet.
Dan Reed's shameless opportunism
Dan Reed presents himself as a denunciation filmmaker, but in reality he is a mercenary of the scandal. His only objective is to continue squeezing a controversial issue that has generated income and media attention. Instead of searching for the truth, Reed is dedicated to reinforcing a unique version of the facts, ignoring contradictions and elements that could weaken his story.
An unfounded attack against someone who cannot defend himself
Michael Jackson is not alive to respond to these accusations, which makes this "documentary" even more questionable. It's easy to build a narrative when the other party has no way to defend themselves, and that's exactly what Reed does: presenting testimonies without questioning them, avoiding any serious scrutiny.
An opportunistic and manipulative work
Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson is just an unnecessary and opportunistic replay of his predecessor. Without new evidence, without objectivity and without the intention of thorough investigation, this production is an insult to documentary journalism. Instead of shedding light on the truth, it only perpetuates the morbid and sensationalism. A junk product that doesn't deserve anyone's time.
"Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson" - An Exercise in Sensationalism and Repetition
Dan Reed returns to the charge with Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson, a sequel that not only lacks informative value, but also insists on exploiting a worn narrative without providing strong evidence or new perspectives. More than a serious documentary, this production seems like a desperate attempt to remain relevant at the expense of the memory of Michael Jackson, without any kind of impartiality or journalistic rigor.
Repetitive and without new content
If the first Leaving Neverland was already criticized for its lack of verifiable evidence and its obvious bias, this second part does nothing more than recycle the same testimonies without adding anything substantial. Wade Robson and James Safechuck repeat their accusations, but without providing additional documentation or evidence to support their statements, which makes this "documentary" a redundant monologue.
Total lack of balance and objectivity
A serious documentary should present different perspectives, but Leaving Neverland 2 completely ignores any opinion that does not fit with its narrative. There are no interviews with impartial experts, with lawyers in the case, with Jackson's family or with people who lived with the artist. The absence of any attempt at contrast or rigorous investigation shows that this is not a documentary, but a propaganda pamphlet.
Dan Reed's shameless opportunism
Dan Reed presents himself as a denunciation filmmaker, but in reality he is a mercenary of the scandal. His only objective is to continue squeezing a controversial issue that has generated income and media attention. Instead of searching for the truth, Reed is dedicated to reinforcing a unique version of the facts, ignoring contradictions and elements that could weaken his story.
An unfounded attack against someone who cannot defend himself
Michael Jackson is not alive to respond to these accusations, which makes this "documentary" even more questionable. It's easy to build a narrative when the other party has no way to defend themselves, and that's exactly what Reed does: presenting testimonies without questioning them, avoiding any serious scrutiny.
An opportunistic and manipulative work
Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson is just an unnecessary and opportunistic replay of his predecessor. Without new evidence, without objectivity and without the intention of thorough investigation, this production is an insult to documentary journalism. Instead of shedding light on the truth, it only perpetuates the morbid and sensationalism. A junk product that doesn't deserve anyone's time.
A bunch of garbage. I give it 1 star because i can't give it 0 stars.