3
The 127-minute trailer montage for the new Michael Jackson biopic is a hectic tapestry assembled from every musical movie cliché imaginable, the rumbling tour bus, the high-risk recording studio, the rising Billboard charts and corporate boardrooms to depict the journey of the 20th century’s most controversial and groundbreaking musical figures.
Despite being touted as the definitive cinematic portrait of the King of Pop, the film struggles to transcend the familiar rhythms of the singer’s early life and chronicle his meteoric rise from the Jackson 5 era with a heavy hand.
This is a legendary artist who needs no introduction. But what about the famous Jackson off camera, often described as a complicated, misunderstood figure with childlike behavior who maneuvered his unprecedented fame with calculated control over his public image?
Universal’s new three-and-a-half-hour epic is expected to gross $700 million, and early footage shows it will top Freddie Mercury’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” by at least $2 million. According to Variety, the Jackson estate paid $15 million after lawyers overlooked a clause in the settlement with Jordan Chandler, Jackson’s accuser, in which he asked not to be mentioned in the biopic.
Beyond the film’s $50 million budget, there’s an even greater price tag for photography. The film actually avoids dramatizing Jackson’s court battles and other real-life challenges and focuses on Jackson’s “ordinary” life events.
The Jackson estate, led by co-executors John Branca and John McClain, went from $500 million in debt at the time of Jackson’s death to a $2 billion empire today.
Their primary goal was to preserve the singer’s perfect reputation and legacy while ensuring profitability for future generations.
Less of a “man in the mirror”
Early reviews of Antoine Fuqua’s “Michael” suggest that the film is less a “man in the mirror” and more a carefully curated museum exhibition aimed at improving his tarnished image due to his continued global popularity. The film points to a paradox: how to effectively portray Jackson’s life with visual art drawn entirely from his time in front of the camera. The focus is on the music and Jackson’s infectious smile, which is appreciated by his fans around the world. The songs like “Who’s Lovin’ You”, “I Want You Back” and “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough” would be enough for his fans to buy a ticket.
While the film is a move to reclaim the late star’s legacy, occasionally touching on the singer’s loneliness and isolation, initial press screenings ahead of an April 2026 release are still drawing negative reviews.
Critics from major networks including Variety, The Guardian and The BBC are unanimous in their assessment of the Jaafar Jackson film, saying that while the musical performances are electrifying, the narrative is a “dull” attempt to protect the legacy of the pop star’s estate.
A star is born: Jaafar Jackson, the film’s only saving grace
The performances of Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s real-life nephew, were cited as the film’s only saving grace. Critics agree that Jaafar captures his uncle’s ethereal voice and preternatural dancing skills with haunting precision.
But reviewers argue that even a transformative lead performance can’t save a script that The Guardian described as “clichéd” and “bad.”
The consensus suggests that the film comes across as a “greatest hits” compilation and fails to delve deeply into the complex human being that was Jackson, leaving audiences with a superficial retelling of the star’s rise to fame and his creative process in a fantasy world.
Biopic “Splattered” on Rotten Tomatoes
The critical reception of the Jackson biopic was reflected in the early film scores on Rotten Tomatoes, which another media outlet, Forbes, described as “splatter.”
The film struggled to gain traction based on early reviews, a surprising turn for a project that has had major Oscar potential throughout its production.
The main point of contention is the way in which the film deals with the various controversies that marked Jackson’s later life, including aggression and defiance.
Critics accuse director Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter Anthony McCarten of “sanitizing” the narrative surrounding Jackson’s fame by glossing over the most polarizing aspects of Jackson’s life and story.
According to The BB, the film is more of a “fan service” than a balanced biographical study and leaves the viewer with a disjointed image of the hero.
Critics point out that a certain degree of “Bowdlerization” is to be expected due to the fact that the film was produced in collaboration with the Michael Jackson Estate.
However, the extent of the whitewashing has surprised audiences who have loved Jackson for years.
Variety magazine notes that the portrayal of Joe Jackson, played by Colman Domingo, and the allegations that followed the singer in his later years were strategically toned down to preserve Jackson’s brand image rather than cater to audiences and their curiosity.
An uncertain future at the box office
Despite the critical acclaim, the film is still expected to be a major commercial draw. The global reach of Jackson’s music and the curiosity that Jaafar Jackson’s debut brings may insulate the film somewhat from its poor reviews. But as it stands, Michael appears to be a film caught between two worlds – a living tribute to a musical genius and a shield against his colorful history and real-life challenges.
For Jackson’s beloved fans who want to see more of the “King of Pop,” the film delivers the spectacle, but for those who want to separate the man from his musical image, critics warn they will miss that aspect.
