Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson

Whereas the original Leaving Neverland from 2019 was an important document of two men telling their version of the truth about what happened at Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch in the 1990s, this follow-up documentary is a feeble and vapid attempt at milking the old formula and placing blame where it arguably doesn't belong. Suing a business for what one of their deceased employees did in his own home outside of work seems a particularly dangerous path to tread - and a little too obviously motivated by money. The lack of such motivation was supposed to be exactly what made Jackson and Safechuck's testimonies so hard-hitting and valid in the first film.

This follow up to the acclaimed documentary 'Leaving Neverland' tells of the fight of the people abused by Michael Jackson for legal justice (that abuse having been the subject of the earlier film). The film is short and doesn't waste time repeating the claims made in the earlier film; it's more of an update for those hoping that after its showing, something would be done. Now justice needs to be timely, but it sometimes seems that with sufficient money, you can basically escape the law simply by fighting on every possible point. One can think about the current U. S. President as one example; and the fact that the case against Jackson's estate will not be held until 2026 while Jackson's music continues to make millions for his heirs is surely a sign that something is wrong with the system. Also, why is it socially more acceptable to be a fan on Michael Jackson than of, say, Gary Glitter? Answers on a postcard...

This so-called "documentary" is nothing but a shameful attempt to revive baseless accusations that have already been thoroughly debunked. It offers nothing new, instead relying on two men who have spent years trying to extort money from Michael Jackson's estate, with no concrete evidence to back their claims-just empty words and fabricated stories. The media's decision to give these discredited figures a platform shows a blatant disregard for the truth and a clear desire for sensationalism. This project is a desperate cash grab, aimed at exploiting a legendary figure's name for profit. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!

Same as the first so called 'documentary' - all anecdotal and hearsay, absolutely no evidence, nor any attempt to corroborate the facts. Nor any attempt to argue the facts that have been proven against it like the 'Train Station', the 'Grand Canyon' or the 'Mortgage Payment'. Even though Dan Reed does spend time trying to show his own arguments, like the letter 'begging for an interview' - would you give me a break, tbh e directors arrogance here just proves that he thinks people are stupid. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson by any means, but I'm a fan of the truth which this is anything but.

The sensationalist portrayal of the first 'documentary' was successful mostly because of the time, which was the me too movement. Times have changed now and people are so much more educated about the media agenda and that controversy sells more than the truth. I expect a bigger backlash this time.

If you're looking for an objective documentary about Michael Jackson's allegations, this ain't it. No evidence of Michael's guilt is provided, all we get are Wade and James's accounts, that are full of discrepancies. It all seems like a desperate attempt to get more money from Michael's Estate. Dan Reed does not address the issues and lies uncovered in the first part of this "documentary" and does not challenge his "stars" in any way, something you would expect from an unbiased director, interested only in the truth. Reed's own stance seems to be that of a detractor, reminding very much of the prosecutor Tom Sneddon, who made it his lifetime ambition to hunt and destroy Michael Jackson.