Lynn Lawson

I love this show. When I learned that Lily Collins is the daughter of Phil Collins, I loved her even more. How a show like this could offend ANYONE, is beyond me. Most of the actors are French and the backdrop/setting for the show is Paris, so chances are, it’s woke Americans who have attempted to take this show out on nonsensical or puritanical grounds. Emily is adorable but Silvie is my favorite female character. I also adore Gabriel, Mindy, Alphie, Luc, Julien. This is a wonderfully entertaining show- a real gem that I am happy to have discovered. Hope there will soon be a season 3.

Loved it. The movie critics appear to be missing the fact that this is a portrait of an aging man with Alzheimer’s seen through the eyes of his 10 year old granddaughter (played by his actual granddaughter which makes the movie even more compelling). This is not a documentary about a disease or about traveling across Europe. The scenarios are idealized because a 10 year old is experiencing things for the first time. Very touching reminder about the importance of joy in our lives while also facilitating a discussion about aging and the sometimes devastating effects of dementia. My husband and I happened to find this movie on HBO during his recovery from a traumatic medical event. Perhaps we were simply more receptive to the positive message of the film than the various critics who appeared confused by its “lack of realism.” (We also chuckled at the “nincompoop” reference).

I would watch anything with Idris Elba in it. I don’t understand why Kate Winslet was required to speak in a forced “American” accent. If the part was meant for an American, why not just cast one? That was my main complaint about this movie. Otherwise, it was a movie- a work of fiction, an escape- so it shouldn’t be held to the standard of a documentary. I enjoyed the movie and the found the romance to be the most realistic part, having raised the very legitimate question about whether a very pure and genuine human connection forged during a time of crisis and in anticipation of possible death, can survive and continue in “real” and regular life.

Let’s be clear. This film is “a movie,” and not a “documentary.” A true documentary challenges assumptions and “documents” facts by digging deeper, presenting evidence obtained through research, interviewing critical witnesses, etc. A documentary presents information fairly without ramming conclusions down our throats, leaving that process to the viewer. This movie contains heavily manipulated and edited testimonials from 2 (discredited) accusers and their mothers under very controlled circumstances designed to exploit the natural emotional response to graphic descriptions of child sexual abuse. “Leaving Neverland” is a sales pitch which promotes both the character and likability of its stars and a story of horrendous abuse against the backdrop of an off the rails MeToo movement which commands us to blindly accept and believe allegations without regard to the deception of concealing and misrepresenting key facts and witnesses which would otherwise challenge and contradict them. There is a great deal of information publicly available, including key facts related to court proceedings, recent interviews conducted by John Ziegler of Brandi Jackson and her brother (niece and nephew of MJ, Brandi having dated Robson for 7 or 8 years) and numerous prior statements from Robson defending and praising Jackson, both before and after his death. Robson famously testified (as an adult) that Jackson never abused him. Robson also praised Jackson as an individual until Robson suffered a financial breakdown and lost his connection to the Jackson family when the estate declined to give him the Vegas show gig he was counting on. The lawsuit filed by the movie’s accusers seeking millions from the MJ estate is currently on appeal, having been dismissed by the lower court. A credible case is easily made that both of these men (and their families) benefited financially from Jackson during his life and after and that they were motivated by a desire for money and fame to participate in this movie. Of course, we will never know for sure what actually happened but at the very least, we should wonder- what is the purpose of sharing such vile allegations and personal details regarding a dead man (who is no longer a threat) if not for financial gain and celebrity? Tales of childhood sexual abuse should never become a source of entertainment or financial gain. Wade Robson didn’t just defend Michael Jackson against these allegations (before his career stalled and he ran out of money) but he also praised Jackson for his character and his enormous contributions to culture and history while crediting Jackson for his own professional success (claiming he would be nothing without Jackson essentially). This movie is grossly one-sided (heavily edited at that) and unfair. We cannot accept this method and practice of controlling and weaponizing allegations of abuse if we wish to live in a just world where facts and context matter. We can critically examine allegations of abuse while remaining respectful to the accusers and taking their claims seriously. Through its format (unlike a legal proceeding), this movie appears to intentionally prejudice and manipulate the audience with disturbing images designed to corrupt the ability to fairly review facts and draw rational conclusions.

Just finished watching Season 1 but already, the idea of this show going on without its main character, Frank Underwood, is ridiculous. I may stop watching when Keven Spacey leaves. In any event, I have to question the wisdom of firing him for his personal troubles when doing so apparently affected the success of the show and certainly the other actors who were arguably punished for things they had nothing to do with. Otherwise, Season 1 is intriguing enough to entice me to continue binge watching and hopefully, Keven Spacey will be allowed to return to acting once he has been sufficiently publicly shamed for his private behavior.