Leaving Neverland II: 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.

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.

What absolute dross.

Zero factuality, just more sad music and repetitive nonsense, zero explanation of multiple issues raised regarding the first instalment, and the same old circular reasoning of "it's true because they said it's true".

Despite the multiple issues raised casting serious doubt on these stories, including but not limited to literally alleging an encounter in a building that wasn't built until years after the alleged incident as proven by building permits and photographs, this was not touched upon and instead swept under the carpet in the hopes it would be ignored.

I do hope no one watched with the expectation of anything new or logical as it's a complete waste of time.

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.

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.