Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story (2004)

Just accidentally caught this on some cheap, free 'cable channel'. Hilarious. If anyone has ever seen Star Stories, the British satire on celebrity, then they will enjoy this appalling attempt at entertainment. For starters, Michael Jackson was about 5'9", not 6'3" as portrayed by the far- too-butch actor Flex Alexander. He was also a creme colour, not green! The producers ought to have solicited the talent of some impersonator. This film made even Jurassic Shark look good, which is saying something. In other words, I highly recommend watching this if you roll in drunk one evening and want a giggle for a bit... BELIEVE!!!!! Shamone!

The main word that comes to mind when considering this film is "dodgy". This is a low-quality film biography of one of the most iconic performers of all time. The Gloved One deserved better.Before getting into the meat of my thoughts on this biopic, I have to say that there are two things I found effective. First was the use of actual fan footage and interviews at certain points in the film, especially in the scenes depicting the first set of child molestation allegations. I feel that this contributed a certain authenticity that was *severely* lacking throughout the rest of the film. Second was the sequence depicting the courtship of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I will not comment on whether I believe the marriage was a sham, but by many accounts, it was a relationship where care and affection existed between the two parties involved. That really came across in this film; Flex Anderson and Krista Rae had decent enough chemistry to pull it off. These successful points are enough to keep Man in the Mirror away from 1-star status.That said...there was very little else here that worked. Very few of the actors looked like the people they were supposed to portray, most egregiously those playing Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Jackson, and Diana Ross. Also, the absence of Jackson's music was a huge loss. How can you effectively tell a story about him without his music?? I understand that they were unable to secure the rights to it with this being a low-budget, unauthorized production; it seems, though, that if you can't have the man's music in a film about him, you might as well pack it up and go home, because you're missing out on an extremely important part of his life story.This film's characterization of Jackson bothered me a little, too. I won't argue that he was troubled and may have been a few fries short of a value meal, but here, he was portrayed as something close to mentally disabled. I don't believe that Jackson, known to have been a shrewd businessman, would have been quite as naive about how the adult world works as he was made out to be in this film.Finally, the way this film was written was nothing short of disgraceful. Many lines or exchanges of dialogue were either extremely corny, like Michael and Janet's "Tinkerbell" exchange, or nonsensical, like the "Blanket of love" comments made by Michael. Also, the screenwriters don't exactly have a knack for subtlety. There was a lot of telegraphing of upcoming events ("What could possibly go wrong??" sorts of lines) and extremely overt hammering of themes and motifs in the film (if I'd heard the word "believe" one more time...). This is what ultimately hobbled the film as something that could be considered awesomely bad.Perhaps when we are a few years, or even a decade or three, removed from Jackson's death, someone will be able to bring his story to life in a more deserving film. By that time, we might have a better perspective on his life, and someone will be able to present a truly thoughtful examination of who Michael Jackson really was and what he's meant to the world of entertainment. This very dodgy biopic was not that film.

I only discovered this film after searching through Wikipedia for information on Michael Jackson (which is most certainly what millions of others are doing, in the wake of his highly publicized death).The film is an exploration, not of Michael Joseph Jackson's life, but of his fame; particularly following the Earth-shattering success of 'Thriller'. It mostly skims over these years (but then, just about everything in the film feels 'skimmed over'), but there are some interesting developments, such as the beginning of Michael's supposed troubles with the vitiligo disease as well as the infamous Pepsi Cola accident, where he was badly burned (this serves as a segue into Jackson's near-obsession with cosmetic surgery).The majority of this biopic is based in the 1990s and portrays in brief, the countless occasions where the media clashed with Michael Jackson, particularly the child-abuse allegations of 1993. His friendship with Liz Taylor is decently established (although the actress is sub-par) and throughout the film, Michael's kinship with someone by the name of 'Bobby' (who I can only assume is his bodyguard or housekeeper or something) is probably the highlight of the film (along with something that I shall mention later on in the review). Michael's relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Rowe, the two wives he had in the 90s are explored with the former being an impressive recount (if slightly historically inaccurate, if accounts from Presley herself are to be believed) and the latter being a pathetic footnote. The film concludes with Michael being accused once more of child abuse, and choosing to fight the charges (rather than trying to avoid them, as he did in 1993).This is not a very well-made biopic. It is not 'Walk the Line' or 'Ray' and I would hesitate to say that it is even as good as TV movie-biopics such as 'The David Cassidy Story'. It employs very 'hip' directorial methods, that one would expect from CSI and other such programming. The acting ranges from above-average (Flex Alexander is quite good) to absolutely dire (the actress who played Janet). The most noteworthy criticism is the make-up, which was uncomfortably off throughout the film. The film makes some efforts to show Jackson's transition from the fresh-faced, very black young man of 'Thriller' to the tanned (but still obviously African American) 27-year-old of the 'Bad' era to the ghost-faced Jackson of the 1990s. For some reason, the film awkwardly chooses to keep Flex Alexander in the 'Bad'-era makeup throughout most of the second act of the film, throughout years where Jackson was very obviously not black (such as his marriage to Presley, for example). This takes viewers who are even only slightly somewhat familiar with the man's history out of the experience. It makes little sense when Flex Alexander goes from being a black man with some chalk lightly pasted on his face to being a very, very white man with features that have been utterly, surgically overhauled.In all honesty however, the film has some very interesting ideas about Jackson and its ending is almost a saving grace in how it ties together two of the most recurring themes of the film: Michael's fear of failure (in the eyes of his father and the media) and his undying love and respect for his fans, the people who would never leave him. It is clear that the ending was probably the one very clear idea the writers and director had while making this very obviously rushed, low-budget film and it stands out as a noteworthy highlight for a fairly mediocre film.In conclusion, fans of Jackson could do worse than to watch this biopic, particularly those who mourn his passing. Taken with a pinch of salt, this is a fairly decent film with interesting ideas.

when I first started to watch this movie i really started to like it, it showed that Michael Jackson had no child hood and had a father that was pretty hard on him. then later in his life he was accused of child abuse, because of this he lost a lot of fans.(as you all probably know by know) i believe Michael Jackson and would support him in his defense( if i could) however another thing i liked about this film is that they showed that they didn't make this film because for people to believe Micheal Jackson.the one thing that i did not like about this film is that i never really had an end. there was a problem(Jacksons father) then it was sovoled (moving to never land) then there was another problem( the child abuse) then there was another problem (Jacksons wife) then it sorta just needed right there. well they did have a nice scene at the end when Michael is on top of his car. so then we go back to the summary 'what is wrong with this movie?'is it the fact that it never had an end?? or is it the fact that it was too long or too short??in my opinion this is a very good movie for its genre and it almost feels a little bit more respectful to like it."you don't use the media, the media uses you"