Critics are sharply divided over the new Michael Jackson biopic “Michael,” with some praising its nostalgic celebration of the singer’s music and others condemning it as a sanitized whitewash that avoids his most troubling controversies.
The film, directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan, focuses on Jackson’s early career from his days with the Jackson 5 through the 1988 Bad World Tour concert in London, deliberately ending years before the first child sexual abuse allegations surfaced in 1993.
Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s 29-year-old nephew and son of Jermaine Jackson, portrays the King of Pop, taking over from Juliano Valdi who plays the 10-year-old version in the opening act. Critics noted Jaafar’s intuitive flair in replicating Michael’s onstage dancing and singing style.
David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter described the film as delivering “a warm rush of transporting pleasure” for lifelong fans who cherish Jackson’s music, calling it “phenomenal” as a celebration of his songs and stagecraft, while acknowledging it leaves itself “open to accusations of making Michael a saint.”
Variety’s Owen Gleiberman similarly praised it as “an engrossing middle-of-the-road biopic” that plays well, highlighting its performances and cinematography, though Deadline’s Pete Hammond noted it “falls short of giving any new insights” while still saying Jaafar Jackson “dazzles” in a role fans would “eat up.”
In stark contrast, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw called the film “a frustratingly shallow, inert picture” that plays “like a 127-minute trailer montage” assembled from every music-movie cliché imaginable, from recording studio astonishment to tour bus scenes and billboard chart ascents.
Bradshaw criticized the film’s inability to question or scrutinize Jackson’s “diffident, delicate mannerisms” or find within them the “passion and defiance of his early self,” arguing it fails to address the possible source of a later, darker side, while noting the elephant in the living room remains unaddressed: the accusations of child sexual abuse.
For more on this story, see Michael Jackson biopic Michael receives 31% Rotten Tomatoes score, praised for acting but criticized for avoiding controversies.
The Guardian also highlighted Colman Domingo’s portrayal of Joe Jackson as the one actor allowed to “let rip,” describing him as “fierce and watchable” in the pantomime role of the brothers’ patriarch and tormentor who “brutally exploits his talented boys, gouging them for every cent.”
The film’s epilogue card reading “His story continues” has sparked speculation about a potential sequel, with Producer Graham King and the Jackson family estate reportedly considering a “Michael 2,” though no clear commitment exists and those involved might prefer to exit here to avoid controversy, similar to the stage show MJ: The Musical.
Despite the criticism, the film benefits from Jackson’s enduring popularity, with diehard fans still eager to celebrate his legendary trajectory from childhood Motown stardom to pop royalty through the three certified banger albums produced by Quincy Jones: Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad.
For those whose opinion of Jackson was shaped by the tabloid feeding frenzy beginning in 1993 and documentaries like HBO’s Leaving Neverland, the film is unlikely to change their view, but it may offer nostalgic pleasure to those who remember when his songs dominated pop charts, parties, and dance floors worldwide.
Why does the film end in 1988?
The filmmakers chose to end with the 1988 Bad World Tour concert in London, years before the first child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson surfaced in 1993, to avoid addressing those accusations.
What specific criticisms did The Guardian raise about the film’s portrayal of Michael Jackson?
The Guardian criticized the film for presenting Michael with “endless smiley blandness” and a “childlike pass-agg birdsong” speaking voice, arguing it fails to scrutinize his mannerisms or find the passion and defiance of his early self within them.
Is a sequel to “Michael” likely?
A sequel remains an open question; while Producer Graham King and the Jackson estate are reportedly considering a “Michael 2,” there is no clear commitment, and those involved may prefer to avoid controversy by ending the story here.