This story contains spoilers for the movie “Michael” and is the sole opinion of the writer
The Michael Jackson movie was always destined to be the prodigal son of the cinema – a movie about the one of the most famous musicians ever to grace this Earth, bringing all types of audiences back to the movie theater and generating billions in revenue at the box office. Everyone saw it coming, and yet I was still surprised by the film.
I grew up listening and dancing to Michael Jackson being played constantly by my parents. A staple of every home, the King of Pop reverberated through the speakers and earbuds. While I have since moved on from that constant repeat of “Man in the Mirror” and “Billie Jean,” I still find myself returning to his music for nostalgia and a sense of enjoyment even if I now Prince.
I was wary when preparing myself for this movie. It’s difficult for a film properly portray a person with this amount of stardom while still showcasing the difficulties that he went through, especially through a career that spanned his life. Well, the film tried its best.
The conflict of this film plays a simple game of cat and mouse. Michael hits a multiple roadblocks within the film but miraculously, and without much effort, resolves each with ease. The forefront of this relies on the relationship between Joseph and Michael Jackson, diving into the depths of emotional and physical trauma that Joseph inflicted on Michael during the early stages of his career.
But this conflict rarely feels imposing. At certain points within the film, we see the buildup and actions of Joseph become increasingly threatening, yet resolve without much tension or are underscored by fantastical elements like playing Michael’s upbeat music in the background or inserting a giraffe into the shot. We see the difficulties that Michael faces occur on screen, but it doesn’t make any genuine attempt to make us understand how these things impacted him or his perception of the world. Instead, we see an infantilized caricature of Michael playing Twister with his pet monkey.
It also skips over greatly impactful parts of Michael’s career – Jermaine leaving the Jackson 5, Janet Jackson’s involvement in his life, the alternative father figures he had and abruptly concluding the film in 1988 during the “Bad” tour. These actions paint the film in a significantly safe light by ending before the drama and controversy surrounding Neverland and allegations can take place.
My greatest issue with the film surrounds its content by acting as a glorified concert/album film. It felt like half this film was spent playing music and showing concerts —replacing valuable screen time of this 128-minute film that could’ve been spent properly building character depth. If I wanted to watch Michael Jackson sing and dance during his concerts, I would go on YouTube to watch the authentic counterparts of the scenes they were based on within this film.
A musical biopic has the ability to be intimately reflective of the artist’s complexities without sacrificing its filmmaking, using the songs as tools of storytelling rather than empty fan service. 2025’s “Better Man” does this perfectly by depicting the struggles and growth Robbie Williams went through all while ambitiously depicting himself as a monkey. “Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere” also wasn’t afraid to show the depths of Bruce Springsteen – his artistic process of creating music while battling difficulties of self-actualization and depression.
I bring these two films up because they go against the grain of many musical biopics that are being produced today. They feature raw and intimate details that don’t put the artist on a higher idolatrous pedestal than they are already on, but instead bring them down to a more raw, human level. Most biopics being made now tend to have a sanitized “Hollywood” narrative that misinforms audiences about the events and people on-screen. A large example of this is 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” in which they rearranged parts of Freddie Mercury and Queen’s life, as well as fabricating conflict, in order to tell a “better” story for the screen.
The oversaturation of biopics is also draining. Figures like Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley are some of the most well-documented people in history, so why must we watch a film (produced by their families and estates, mind you) in order to learn the “true story” of their lives? Year after year, more biopics get announced about various musicians (like the four Beatles movies coming in 2028) that hardly critique or properly portray the true complexities of their characters. It turns into just another form of marketing and idolization of these superstars, but with rose-tinted glasses on, since it becomes more accessible for fans of the artist.
Yet, I couldn’t help but still grin while watching this movie even through all of the issues. This film is made for fans of Michael, where they can go and watch a fairly sanitized and safe story of his life while listening to his hits. Jaafar Jackson embodies Michael so powerfully that I fully forgot I wasn’t watching Michael’s nephew portray him on screen. Also, while I do complain about this film being a glorified concert film, each of those sequences of dance and music were enjoyable because of the sound design and cinematography present.
“Michael” is an overly zealous compilation of his early life and greatest hits. In this film’s adoration and eagerness to finally give the King of Pop his own biopic, it forgets to show that he was a fallible human being. He isn’t a man within this film, only an icon. These choices cause it to fail as a film that properly displays his complexities and depth, serving as an empty piece of storytelling that offers limited introspection for us to dive into. I continually stay wary for the eventual Justin Bieber biopic that will release in the next 20 years.
