Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Alaska Mulders Definitely not as good as most of his stuff, but some people on here need to chill... Louis is a journalist, and not a fool or buffoon. (What the hell even brings you to that conclusion?) But although I think very highly of Louis, I have to agree that this 'documentary' is slightly pointless. It would have been very interesting to see Louis interview Michael, and I'll forever regret the fact it didn't happen. But this wasn't really a good alternative. Although it was sort of interesting to see how hard it was to reach Michael, and all the strange people that were part of his world, like Uri Geller and Joe Jackson, it wasn't enough to carry the whole documentary. Too bad, Louis interviewing Michael could have been epic.

fedor8 Watching a nerdy, nepotist BBC journalist have a tete-a-tete with one of the world's biggest liars and charlatans, Uri Geller, was quite fun. It was one of those "I know that he knows that I know that he knows" quasi-duels, with on-the-surface cordiality from both parties, but with an underlying tension that was almost palpable. Talk about insults being hurled with understatement... Then again, the feeling of uneasiness follows Theroux in nearly all his programs/interviews; he carefully tests the boundaries, probing his victim - "killing him softly", as it were (or trying to go in for the kill at least) - until the latter (usually) finally realizes Louis went too far and then gets upset like a little child. (That's the gist of Theroux's "journalistic method".) That Uri is highly intelligent (as all world-class crooks are) is not in question, but I am rather mystified by this Theroux. Is he a semi-buffoon, a total buffoon, or a bright guy pretending to be a buffoon? I have personally used the "idiocy card" to my own advantage on many an occasion, hence know of its golden value, but it's hard to place Theroux in this field. Perhaps he is a semi-fool who thinks he's a bright guy who is pretending to be a total fool? Nevertheless, at whatever level Theroux's IQ and abilities lie, he does score points for his second interview with Joe Jackson. After all, what he got out of the senile old boat was the memorable un-PC statement: "we hate gays, we do not approve of them at all". How interesting, this little slip-up... Not that I'm at all surprised, for this kind of predictable hypocrisy lurks behind every celebrity-"humanitarian's" carefully constructed public exterior; I was merely semi-shocked that these two experienced media wolves (who cash in 5000 bucks for practically nothing) would actually admit to something like that on camera - in the process damaging Michael Jackson's already ridiculously shoddy reputation even further. Besides, their reaction to the "gilfriend or boyfriend" comment only solidifies what even the most mentally-challenged frogs in lower reaches of the Amazon know: that MJ luuurves children.Terry George expresses his desire to renew the "friendship" he once had with MJ. So naive and optimistic is Terry, that he forgets the essential component missing in his CV: he is an adult. Hence of no interest to the world's biggest nose-contortionist.Speaking of that, I don't know if Louis Theroux is a genuine fool or whether he was just being "the polite, moderate journalist" by basically describing MJ as a "talented, troubled individual". (I'd call him many things, but that wouldn't be one of them. Sounds like the military referring to a battlefield as a "theater of operations".) As the credits roll, Theroux expresses his wish to meet MJ, but as a "curious bystander and fan". I would have preferred a more brutal, sarcastic comment for the epilogue. But that's the BBC for you... They lack the edge (mildly put) to make truly ground-breaking, hilarious, honest stuff.As for MJ's fans, they are the ones who are "deeply disturbed and need help". On the other hand, I don't really want them to be helped, because, after all, who else is going to entertain us if all of the world's pitiful, lonely worshipers of hyped-up pop stars suddenly all woke up from their horror/fairy-tale slumbers? Who would we have to laugh at as they foam at the mouth camping in tents in front of concert halls and 5-star hotels? I, for one, would love to see a documentary made solely about MJ's fans. But with someone who is a little less preoccupied with remaining PC, as Theroux (and just about every modern TV journalist) happens to be...Btw, Theroux has nepotism to thank for his TV career. Somehow it makes sense...

Maarten F. Although generally I find Louis Theroux' documentaries entertaining, refreshing, open-hearted and revealing, I wouldn't call him a journalist. Well, at least not for this film.Like his master Michael Moore, who learned him the trade in the epic series TV Nation, Theroux is biased and partial. And he has a very mean but subtle way to weave that bias into his documentaries.In this film Theroux is unmasked by Uri Geller (one of the gatekeepers to Michael Jackson) in a scene where he presents a picture of MJ and suggestively comments that 'this picture was officially endorsed' and 'seriously, I'm not pulling your leg here'. At that point Geller responds and starts revealing the true intentions of Theroux.From then on its a downward spiral. He arranges an interview with father Joe Jackson through a Vegas agent called Majestik Macnificent, pays up a total of US$ 5.500 for which he gets a few hours of Jackson promoting his new talent acts and only five minutes of interview on the curb, five minutes where Theroux totally locks up.At the end of the film, Theroux has another opportunity to speak with MJ's dad, but he manages to spoil that opportunity as well. Big time.I think in this film Theroux' biggest mistake is that he shows no interest whatsoever in the people that he does get to interview (be it Uri Geller, Majestik Magnificent or Joe Jackson) and tries much, much to hard to get an interview with Michael. He's just too eager, too hung up, too personally involved.Which will undoubtedly have made it much harder to swallow that ITV's Martin Bashir got the MJ-scoop of the century.

bob the moo In 2001, Louis Theroux decides to set out on a journey to interview Michael Jackson. When Michael comes to the UK, Louis approaches Uri Geller but gets turned down. He then finds out that ITV has been granted an interview and Louis sets out for LA to meet a close friend of the Jackson family - promoter and magician Majestik Magnificent, who claims he can set up an interview with Joe Jackson, Michael's father. However nothing seems to go easily for Louis and his target seems further away.I have never seen a documentary on Michael Jackson that so spectacularly failed to get anywhere near him, but still managed to be fascinating. The reference to Martin Bashir in the title is partly Louis slight sour grapes that Uri Geller decides to grant ITV the interview over Louis (a decision he regrets by the end of the film). Fans of Michael will be let down, but fans of Louis Theroux will be overjoyed as he is almost the subject of this film. In the start of the film, Uri Geller really makes it clear that Louis' style is suspicious and that he has no intention of trusting him to be anywhere near Michael - the discussion they have on this subject is very tense.However it is nothing to the trials Louis faces when he tries to get near Joe Jackson! First of all Majestik is a very shady character who is very touchy and gets very irritable when they discuss fees, calling Louis a `f**king idiot' for not being clear about what is meant by `terms and conditions'. They settle on £5000 cash for Joe and £500 as a finder's fee. After the deal is made (in a mall parking lot), director Yapp is very verbal to Louis about the fact that `we're going to get shafted, we're gonna get f**ked' and he's sure Joe will just use it for promotion of his artists. The actual interview with Joe is 2 hours long but turns into Joe bringing all his artists with him and only leaving Louis with 5 minutes where he is so flustered that he doesn't make sense with his questions!After the Martin Bashir interview has happened Louis tries Joe again and the interview is even tenser. Joe is very touchy, although in fairness Louis doesn't really help himself by making his first question `Michael says every time he knows he's going to see you, he regurgitates. How does that make you feel?' The deal breaker is a question about Joe's hopes for Michael to find love - `settle down with a boyfriend or girlfriend?' offers Louis, with an immediate reaction from Joe and Majestik of homophobia - the interview ends there!Overall this is a very enjoyable little film. It doesn't help me know anything more about Michael but more about Joe and Uri, plus I got to see Louis lots. It was more a film about him than anything else and it works very well for that reason. I wonder if Louis ever really believed that he would get anywhere near Michael Jackson or if he just believed that the journey itself would be interesting viewing - if it was the latter, then he was totally right.