I don't understand why any critic should be humiliated for a movie that they don't like.
It's clear that they're criticizing the movie because the filmmaking aspects like the writing, directing, and pacing are problems, but audiences only see it because the movie shoves as many Michael Jackson songs as possible, and two things could co-exist. I can understand why critics disliked it, but I can also understand why audiences seemed to love it. The disconnect between the two doesn't mean anything significant.
And what's even funnier is that I can 100% assure you that even if critics disliked it, they knew it's going to make big money because it's Michael Jackson, you know 😂
Viendo las reviews de la peli de Michael Jackson: la misma prensa de siempre, llamándole "Jacko" y llorando porque no hay morbo. Qué asco de gente, son los mismos que le hicieron la vida imposible.
Pero tranquilos, la secuela ya está en desarrollo. Ahí tendréis vuestra polémica, aunque también tendréis la cara de criticarla. ¿Por qué? Porque mostrará que fue declarado INOCENTE de todo en 2005, y como la verdad no encaja en vuestro relato, diréis que la peli es una basura.
La prensa da puto asco, una vez más.
We’ve legit lost the plot. I honestly have zero idea what people are looking for these days but there needs to be a major shift in criticism. The movie I saw was well written, well directed, beautifully shot, insanely well performed and the sound was amazing. Are we “film” critics or not. We’re supposed to help paint the picture of what an audience can anticipate and this score is not even close to that picture, objectively.
i can't believe she had the audacity to claim she only deleted the font. i'm so sorry for Jaafar and the make up team that have to see the slop on the left be the face of promotion
We just won the 2023 "BEST PHOTOGRAPHY" @VCOSimmyAwards ! 🤩🏆
Thank you all for the continued support over the years 💜 Feel free to read my long old thank you message!
Here's to 2024! 📸🍻