Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson

With the first part we saw two grown men claiming they were abused, and having been rejected by 2 separate judges (admonished for lying by one), were trying to pursue the MJ companies for millions of dollars.

During Jackson's lifetime they supported him as children and as adults in court while under oath, on TV, in the press, to friends and relatives. They changed their mind many years after Jackson died and after the statue of limitations ran out on their court testimony.

This show adds nothing new. They're still chasing money, still getting nowhere, still can't support their claims with evidence, in fact are still contradicted by court evidence and testimony from people who were there at the time.

Either way you look at it, these men are liars. Either you choose to believe their decades of support for Jackson and know they're lying now, or you decide to believe their abuse claims and have to accept they lied as adults while under oath in a courtroom.

Finally, these men have publicly declared they're not seeking money but instead want to raise public awareness. So why then are they suing for hundreds of millions of dollars? And why did they initially file their civil claim under seal? Their claims only became public knowledge when the MJ Estate forced it into the public. Again, these men are liars, there's not doubt about it. It's up to you to decide what they're lying about.

A failed second attempt of a ' documentary ' that still doesn't cover the facts surrounding Michael Jackson's allegations.

The two proven liars in this along with the desperate director just come across as false and needy for attention.

There's also nothing new in this, just the usual sombre violin music played over shots of these men who have back tracked on their support of the deceased popstar.

Of course, the future court case will shed a lot more light on the facts surrounding this cash grab than the two past films.

And then I believe we are going to be treated to a third, a trilogy of this is beyond a joke.

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.

Two men who supported Michael Jackson during his criminal trial - one of them even dated the singer's niece for an incredible eight years - conveniently changed their stories years later, turning into "victims" seeking money and fame. As if the moral contradiction wasn't enough, one of them was caught in a blatant lie when he claimed to have burned Jackson memorabilia, only for an auction house to come forward and disprove him, proving that he had sold the items. But the fraud doesn't stop there: both claimed to have been abused in rooms at Neverland Ranch that, at the time of the alleged crimes, didn't even exist! This is not just a memory lapse - it is blatant proof that their allegations are fabricated and that the media, conveniently, chose to ignore the glaring contradictions in this story.

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.