Leaving Neverland II: Surviving Michael Jackson

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!

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.

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.

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.