“LEAVING NEVERLAND II - SURVIVING MICHAEL JACKSON” REVIEW
Official Poster
Oooo boy. First off, let’s talk about that subtitle—“Surviving Michael Jackson.” Clearly, the title borrows from the Netflix doc Surviving R. Kelly, which featured numerous accusers coming forward with stories of sexual abuse, ultimately leading to R. Kelly being put behind bars. That alone might lead viewers to assume that, like Surviving R. Kelly, this sequel to the 2018 bombshell Leaving Neverland is packed with new allegations. But in reality, it’s far tamer by comparison.
The runtime? Just 52 minutes. Meanwhile, the original was a staggering 4 hours. So what's here? How does it compare? Are there new victims? Any new evidence to support the claims? Let’s talk about it.
-
The film opens with Wade Robson and James Safechuck each giving reflective interviews from their homes, speaking on the impact the first Leaving Neverland had on their lives. Clips from the original play in a theater-like setup—almost like echo chambers of their trauma. We also see media reactions from CBS and other outlets, emphasizing how explosive the original film was in shaping public discourse and the damage it did to Michael Jackson’s legacy.
The sequel wastes no time laying out its purpose via a title card: “This is the story of their [Wade and James'] ten-year struggle to get their story to court.” That’s a major shift in expectation. This isn’t a film about revealing new abuse; it’s about legal systems—how Wade, James, and their attorneys are trying to hold Jackson’s companies, MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions, legally accountable for allegedly enabling their abuse.
-
In Between: Background and Thoughts on the Original
Let’s rewind to the first film. In Leaving Neverland (2019), Wade and James alleged that Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children—even though they had previously testified under oath that no abuse occurred.
Full disclosure: when I first watched it, I didn’t believe them. Like many, I thought it was a money grab—an attempt to exploit their connection to a deceased man whose legacy is worth millions. But as I learned more about CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) survivors and looked deeper into the case, my opinion shifted. I started to see the credibility in their stories.
So what I wanted from Leaving Neverland 2 was what I expect from any sequel: more. Not necessarily solid, indisputable evidence—but at least something that could clarify or respond to criticisms of the first film. For example, I was hoping they would address the controversy around the train station—how James described abuse happening there, but the actual Neverland train station wasn’t built until after the time he claimed the abuse occurred. Even a moment of clarification like that would’ve helped. But that’s not what this documentary is about—and that’s a big missed opportunity.
We revisit Wade’s symbolic burning of his Michael Jackson memorabilia in 2012—a personal closure moment. Then, in 2013, he appeared on The Today Show to publicly come forward with his story, stating boldly, “I’ll never go away with this for money, not going to happen.” Soon after, James joined the lawsuit.
We’re introduced to their legal team—Vince Finaldi and John Manly—who clarify that the goal isn’t just to prove Jackson’s guilt, but to show that the people and companies around him enabled the abuse and failed to act.
What is This Sequel?
At its core, this sequel serves as a legal update on Wade and James’ ongoing battle with MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions. There are some new tidbits—like the mention of a tomboy who Jackson allegedly molested and paid off in the mid-1980s, and Jason Francia, the son of former maid Blanca Francia, who was also allegedly paid off. These are noteworthy, but they don’t add much toward proving Wade and James' specific claims.
That said, I don’t think Wade and James are lying. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence beyond this case that adds credibility. For example, a Financial Times article revealed that Michael Jackson’s estate paid off five more accusers after Leaving Neverland aired—each receiving $5 million for their silence. While not definitive proof, that’s a huge red flag. Why pay millions in hush money if there's no truth to these claims?
A critical legal moment in the doc is the demurrer filed by Jackson’s estate—a legal “so what?” meant to dismiss the case not based on whether abuse happened, but whether Jackson’s companies could be held responsible. That grey area becomes the documentary’s central focus: Can a corporation created by Jackson be legally accountable for what he did?
The courtroom footage—especially from 2023—is chilling. The estate’s lawyers argue that even if Jackson did abuse them, the corporations themselves can't be held liable.
Podcast Context & Public Reaction
Another missed opportunity: the film never mentions Wade and James’ post-Leaving Neverland advocacy work. Wade’s website has a life mentorship section based on income tiers. They also host a podcast called From Trauma to Triumph, where they interview other CSA survivors and leaders of healing organizations. No ads. No promotion. Just hour-long episodes discussing trauma.
I just can’t imagine someone faking abuse, then doubling down by making a podcast and bringing other survivors on to share their most painful experiences. That’s not a move someone makes for money. And this podcast was being recorded during the events this film is documenting—yet it’s never even referenced.
Let’s not forget—it’s been over 10 years, and they haven’t stopped seeking justice. I got emotional watching James talk about reconnecting with his younger self—how he just wants justice for that boy.
The film also touches on the public fallout of the original documentary. Clips from Oprah’s After Neverland special and the 2019 Sundance frenzy show just how huge the reaction was. There’s even a montage of comedic responses, including Dave Chappelle’s infamous line: “I don’t believe these motherf**ers.”* Funny to some, but jarring in this context.
Towards the end, director Dan Reed includes a “rational fan” named Z—someone who respects Jackson’s talent but also acknowledges the seriousness of the accusations. It’s a smart, humanizing addition. However, the scenes prior portray Jackson’s defenders as fools through Reed’s choice of edits, Andy Signore bumbling with his cup of coffee and notes. It’s to further add to Reed’s narrative, and doesn’t do service to fans who genuinely believe Jackson is innocent. This is Reed’s film and he’s in his right to edit the footage to fit the narrative he wants to portray, but at the same time, he should’ve portrayed these pro Michael fans in a more honest way.
What I Disliked the Most
What I disliked most is how shallow this sequel felt compared to the original. Leaving Neverland was nearly 4 hours long—meticulously detailed. It wasn’t just about Michael Jackson; it was about the families. About trauma. About healing. Dan Reed has said repeatedly: the first film is about them, not Michael Jackson.
I wish the sequel matched that depth. Here, it tries to cover everything from 2018 to now, but with so little actual footage or insight into Wade and James’ emotional or psychological journeys during this time. I wanted more on their mental state as these legal developments unfolded—something the original film did extremely well, even when recounting events from 20+ years ago.
Instead, the sequel leans heavily on repetitive title cards—even reintroducing Wade and James multiple times as if we forgot who they were. While I appreciated the new footage of James with his son—drawing a haunting parallel between past and present—those moments were rare.
There was also potential to dig deeper into the legal concepts. When the film does explain things like “demurrer,” it’s done quickly, with little emotional or intellectual follow-up.
Missed Themes and Legal Frustration
The film briefly includes a former lead CSA detective, who speaks on systemic abuse. But again, it stops short. There’s no deeper dive into the psychology of grooming, how predators build emotional congruence with children, or behavioral patterns seen in abusers—and how Jackson might fit that mold.
There’s one moment where a Jackson estate lawyer compares the abuse to a child drowning in a pool—a metaphor that comes off as cold and dismissive. The film could’ve used these moments to explain why Wade and James are believed by professionals—or why more audiences should reconsider their stance.
By October 2019, California extended the statute of limitations for CSA survivors, giving Wade and James another legal avenue. But even after that, their cases were dismissed—just one week apart. The film follows the appeal process through 2023, focusing again not on guilt, but corporate liability.
Final Thoughts
The film ends with Wade and James prepping for trial, their tone calm but determined. A final title card reveals the trial is scheduled for November 2026. Dan Reed has announced that a third Leaving Neverland will follow after the trial concludes.
But honestly? Maybe he should’ve just waited. As it stands, this film feels incomplete—not only because more is coming, but because it needed more. It doesn’t add much to the conversation and lacks the depth and clarity of the original.
