Change Your Image
hollywoodhomer
Reviews
Leaving Neverland (2019)
Review in Notes
First hour, mostly BORING!!
Heavily padded, stretched out plotting-wise, probably for dramatic purpose. It can certainly be less than 4 hours long; 1 hour, tops.
Ugh, so much celebrity-fawning! So much celebrity name-dropping, probably to add interest in the boring movie.
Blaming Michael for Robson parents' divorce? Seriously?? This divorce part is probably stretched out for length/dramatic purposes.
Macaulay Culkin called baloney on being the new "victim"!
Detailed questions & explanations by police & prosecutors that the abuse was not "love" would've convinced Robson & Safechuck at those moments, NOT long after when they were adults!
2nd hour more interesting, but mainly as unintentional satire of a real documentary, based on what I already knew.
More blaming Michael for Robson's family drama? Oh come on! Well, I guess it does stretch out the length & dramatic appeal.
With the dumb blaming that it's putting on Michael, I'm surprised the movie doesn't blame Michael for Britney & Justin's breakup!
More lengthy padding with Safechuck's marriage.
You didn't want to testify, Robson, in 2005? You had doubts about the "love" then- had questions & explanations by police & prosecutors for the trial- but couldn't figure it out until you imagined your kid with that "love"??
Safechuck admitted to his mother in 2005 of the supposed abuse, but also claimed that he never admitted to anyone until after Michael's death? (Later Safechuck's mother was happy that Michael died because she supposedly knew that he supposedly hurt James. But, did James tell her in 2005 or AFTER Michael died??)
Raymond Hultman, Juror- did you really say that?? That you couldn't believe that Michael would sleep in bed with loved ones all that time & never do anything to them? YES, most people can do that, except for hardwired perverts! Are you one of those, Hultman?
40 minutes left?? Ughh, does this movie have anything actually believable or real yet? It's (mostly) interesting, but only as drawn-out bogus-ness punctuating this otherwise boring movie!
Oh man, MORE blaming Michael, this time on Robson's professional work energy!
I can tell you love your kid family, Robson, because that was the first emotional comment from you in the whole movie; but that still doesn't explain why you couldn't figure out that it wasn't "love" after all the questions & explanations by police & prosecutors!
The movie is finalizing with another layer of blaming Michael for Robson family drama.
This movie could be more convincing if it actually showcased both sides of this claim. But since it didn't (and based on my own independent study of the absent side)...
A lot of people said that the graphic-ness & revelations of this movie is stunning (and partly why they find it convincing), but I don't know. One of my favorite TV shows is Law & Order SVU, and this is no more shocking than any episode of that show, but here claims (dubious claims) are made against a real person, not a fictional one.
The only positive thing I can say about this movie is the snippets of Michael's music & singing. Though here, they made me sad, because the man who made that music is being horribly vilified in this film.
This movie plays strong on the heart, and sometimes the heart can be so overwhelmed, that we might end up thinking with our hearts instead of our brains. Now, feeling with our hearts is very important, but it's just as important to think with our brains. So don't let your heart drive your thinking while & after watching this movie.
*I guess I should add what I think obviously shouldn't have to be mentioned (since otherwise too often general intelligence disappoints me): The men's claims, deliverance of said claims, don't convince me. They've had ample time to construct, memorize & rehearse the claims, and since they've both been child performers, giving a false claim shouldn't be difficult for them.
Corroborating evidence, or even believable time & place frame, and motives are needed as well, to believe them. But, I've seen the contrary (even if they weren't paid for the movie, they're still suing Jackson's estate for big $, and their dwindling careers would probably get a boost from a sympathetic exposure). So, no...
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
The priest
Something that always bugs me about this movie, is the priest. He watches over the church where Quasimodo lives, so he likely can see & have as big an influence on Quasimodo as Frollo. The priest is always defiant & unafraid of Frollo, yet all this time he never corrects Quasimodo about how Frollo really is, or tries to get other friends or acquaintances for Quasimodo besides Frollo? It would've been a much better finger to Frollo to have Quasimodo be more liked & respected than Frollo.
Alvin and the Chipmunks (2007)
The poop-eating IS real!!
Even though I enjoyed the Chipmunks when I was a kid, I avoided watching this for over a decade because the trailer showed one chipmunk eating another's poop for no good reason.
But then, after noticing how financially successful its franchise has been, maybe I overrated to a desperate trailer (maybe the poop-eating only appears in the trailer).
But NOOO!! The poop-eating IS in the movie and still as unnecessary! 😫😫
The rest of the movie is okay, if clumsy with its plot. But the poop-eating totally ruins it! Uugghh!!
Michael Jackson's Halloween (2017)
Love MJ, but not this!
I love Michael Jackson and I love Halloween, but this was... 😖😖
I know some bad Halloween movies can have enough fun campiness to be watchable, but this wasn't.
Zombieland (2009)
Native American pottery
It was funny, witty and exciting. It wasn't as funny & witty as Shaun of the Dead, but more exciting.
The real sour note for me was smashing up the Native American pottery. I know they were mass-made souvenirs and not priceless antiques, but it still hit too close to home for me.
Black Panther (2018)
Great, but for the secret-keeping
It was mostly good, the action, acting, effects were all great, and the story was... mostly good. And as a history nerd, I love that Black Panther can pique the audiences' interest in the under-studied- but fascinating- African history!
The story's logic, though, fell short regarding secret-keeping of Wakanda's technology:
-Why didn't they take Killmonger back to Wakanda after his father died? Wouldn't leaving him abandoned make a secret-revealing nemesis out of him? (Also, where's Killmonger's mother? Would she also have known about Wakanda's secret but also left untouched?)
-And the big high-tech action scene in South Korea would've easily exposed Wakanda tech to the world, topped with pedestrians broadcasting the whole thing on social media!
-And the biggest issue is Jabari! For millennia, they distrusted using Wakanda tech, mildly antagonist to Wakanda but ultimately harmless to them, and yet kept in the cover-wall of high-tech Wakanda? Realistically, anytime Jabari would've had a leader or two reveal the "threatening Wakanda" to outside neighbors- and knowing the inner workings of Wakanda's defenses- build a coalition to invade, conquer and/or destroy the high tech. It seems too unrealistic that they'd remain the cranky, reclusive hillbilly cousins all this time.
But other than that, it was very good!