So, I saw the new Michael biopic last night ahead of its release on the 2026 movie calendar and had a blast. Honestly, it was like a two-hour non-stop rundown of greatest hits, but the film stops at an unexpected place, so I wasn't surprised when the critics had strong opinions about the way the biopic makes them feel. I was surprised, though, about what exactly the complaints mostly centered on.
While I thought people would have been complaining more about the timeline — Antoine Fuqua's movie takes the pop icon’s career only into the late '80s — the real complaints had far more to do with how the movie dove into Michael Jackson himself. There’s a lot that works, The Wrap’s William Bibbiani writes, but with no mention of the sexual abuse allegations he faced, the movie presents an incomplete and inaccurate narrative. The critic writes:
Whether it’s by design or legal necessity, Michael picks as few battles as possible and backs off almost every time. It’s a film about how great Michael Jackson was and how great you are if you’re still a fan. It can’t be taken seriously, no matter how earnest it looks and sounds. Because it’s not really a story. Maybe it used to be before the reshoots. Maybe not. Either way, now it’s just feature-length publicity, and it plays like damage control.
Michael focuses on the period of the singer’s life from his first performances with The Jackson 5 through the late ‘80s, and an acknowledgement at the end of the movie that there’s more to Michael’s story makes it unclear if a second film might be able to fill in those gaps.
Article continues belowThe original Michael ending addressed allegations of abuse against 13-year-old Jordan Chandler; however, due to an agreement between the Jackson and Chandler families to never dramatize those events, that ending was deemed “unusable.” Director Antoine Fuqua reportedly spent a lot of money to reshoot the ending that audiences will see.
Robert Daniels of RogerEbert says while making no mention of Michael Jackson’s legal troubles doesn’t help the movie, its biggest sin is a lack of complex interest in Michael himself. Daniels gives it just 1 star out of 4, saying Michael isn’t a movie — it’s a playlist. He continues:
This repetitive biopic is afraid to navigate the singer’s anxieties, traumas, and frustrations, and its flat characterizations prevent it from interrogating Michael as a creator or person. Michael leaps from one event to the next without reflection or pause, hastily attempting to summarize an accepted mythology of the singer’s unlikely rise to stardom in a surprisingly tight 127-minute runtime.
Siddhant Adlakha of IGN rates the upcoming music biopic an “Awful” 3 out of 10 and calls it a “frictionless, flat, paper-thin story” that does what should be impossible when speaking about Michael Jackson by making him utterly boring. Adlakha’s review reads:
Michael, or Bohemian Jacksody, is a film of listlessness and inhumanity that can’t help but suck the energy out of the room. No matter where you come down on Jackson as a person, this film is entirely the opposite of what he was, both as an iconic performer and a controversial tabloid figure. Who would have thought that such a carefully controlled, estate-permitted biopic might actually do more damage to an artist’s legacy by making him so uninteresting?
However, Pete Hammond of Deadline says Michael Jackson fans are sure to eat up this feel-good biopic. Jaafar Jackson channels his uncle in uncanny ways, making us believe the King of Pop is with here with us once again. Hammond writes:
The musical dance sequences when they occur are superbly choreographed by Rich and Tone Talauega who have copied every famous step, and this is where Jaafar Jackson just knocks it out of the park. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between him and the real deal, and I was impressed how he slipped on that glove and just stepped into those dancing shoes with genuine authority and style. You believe this kid, and that is key.
David Rooney of THR says this may appear on the surface to be your run-of-the-mill music bio-drama — Michael being the sanitized, fan-friendly, family-sanctioned film that it is — but Rooney finds the project actually quite thoughtful and intimate. It’s a portrait of a damaged man, the critic says, “whose sharp professional instincts seemed at odds with his gentle demeanor.” He concludes:
The film leaves itself open to accusations of making Michael a saint, which will not sit well with the cancel crowd. If you are unwilling to separate the art from the artist, this will not be a movie for you. But for lifelong fans who cherish the music, the movie delivers. Simply as a celebration of Jackson’s songs and stagecraft, it’s phenomenal, shot by Dion Beebe with visual electricity in the performance sequences. The music has never sounded louder or better.
I would have expected more critics to be upset that Michael cuts off before reaching the point in the late artist’s life that could explore his reclusiveness, his relationships, cosmetic surgeries and, of course, the sexual assault allegations. I suppose the tease of a possible second movie is enough to allay those concerns for now.
If you want to see what Jaafar Jackson has to offer as the King of Pop, be sure to get your tickets to Michael when it hits the big screen on Friday, April 24.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
