Quote:
Originally Posted by burnin_vernon
I watched part one and as a documentary, I found it very flawed, slow, and repetitive. A good doc should give two sides of a story so the viewer can form an opinion. Without any evidence presented whatsoever, nor any defense heard from Jackson's side, we are left with 2 hours of interviews from alleged victims and several scenes of overhead drone footage of Neverland.
Maybe part 2 will bring something else to the table but so far I don't see what the value in watching this is. It alternated between boring and disturbingly graphic, all for a story that doesn't try to dig further than what the accusers told them.
|
You're thinking of non-partisan journalism, not documentary film making.
And personally I thought the pacing and build were very well done. The film wasn't meant to be about the trials and MJ's guilt/innocence. It is about the victims and the impact of their stories. They were the evidence.
I found it painful, but incredibly impactful.