alexinou
Joined May 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings2.1K
alexinou's rating
Reviews5
alexinou's rating
I saw this on the BBC iPlayer, the BBC which prides itself on providing unbiased and factual content.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
Can RuPaul get into drag without aid at all?
Pandemic-driven lock down is one thing, but the final contestants deserved so much more.
We knew they might have to film it each from their own homes, but the only creative step we could see from the production to adapt to the situation was to provide the identical background for the lipsync.
Surely some fans had bought tickets for the finale before the lockdown, don't they have the means to connect a couple thousand people and create an online party, showing members of the public's reaction?
And couldn't RuPaul really get into drag at all?
They finalists were some of the best contestants across the 12 seasons nd deserved way more.
When you go to see this movie, you KNOW what to expect: a movie intended for children about a dog getting super powers.
There are 2 situations which might greatly affect your judgement:
I've had a beagle, and yes, your honour: guilty. I've LOVED it !
There are 2 situations which might greatly affect your judgement:
- you have never had a pet, you see a rather... say simplistic movie where the bad guys are either stupid and strong or weak and very smart but so full of themselves at the same time, and the good ones are, aw... cute and sickenly endearing, aren't they ?
- you have had a dog and it even was a BEAGLE !!! Then you will absolutely LOVE this movie, just picturing your four legged friend in the same situation will make your day.
I've had a beagle, and yes, your honour: guilty. I've LOVED it !
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken