Already crushing box office expectations over the weekend, the 2026 biopic Michael, written by John Logan and directed by Antoine Fuqua, was marketed as an amazing experience focusing on the life, times, and music of the King of Pop himself, Michael Jackson, until the mid-1980s. True Michael fans will be happy with the carefully manicured journey down memory lane as Fuqua takes us on a 2-hour-and-7-minute musical journey that starts with the Jackson 5 and ends with Michael’s separation as a solo artist, sans father Joseph “Joe” Jackson. For those not as familiar with Michael or his music, there may be something lacking: more dialogue, more story, more insight, or at the very least, more about the making of—the making of the legend, of the music, of the pop sensation himself. Actually, I’m pretty sure we’d take any type of “more” they’d be willing to give.
The film opens with a young Michael (played by Juliano Valdi and later by Jaafar Jackson) and his siblings rehearsing in their Gary, Indiana, living room under the watchful eye of their father, Joe Jackson (Colman Domingo), and the silent but loving gaze of their mother, Katherine Jackson (Nia Long)—similar to every other movie about Michael Jackson, or the Jacksons in general. From here, we move to watching them perform as teens in adult bars, then on TV shows, and eventually on concert stages. In this way, Michael is a copy of a film that copied another film, which first copied at least five more films of the same title. If there were a Grammarly for film, Michael would not cut the mustard. Despite this, the film still has numerous moments that make it enjoyable to watch.
Some of the most pleasant moments—though unnecessarily repeated throughout the film—revolved around Katherine, with whom Michael spent much time sharing his deepest thoughts, dreams, and wishes, either over ice cream or while watching old black-and-white films. Through Michael confiding in his mother and revealing his desires, including his choice to surround himself with animals rather than humans, viewers see how deeply connected they were and the immense support she provided.
Other sweet spots include Michael’s engagement with himself and the world. We get to see the positive self-speak that reminded the star that “you are beautiful, you are the greatest of all time,” and helped him go on to create some of the world’s most iconic songs. This is often contrasted by his non-confrontational approach to dealing with his only obstacle, better known as his biggest bully: his dad. In these moments, when dealing with Joe, Michael delegates the task of severing ties to his overconfident cheerleader from the record company.
Perhaps because the film aims for the kind of international success that demands an uncomplicated, controversy-free platform, nearly everyone is portrayed as great and unproblematic. The exception is Joe, who is never the good guy in these stories. But other than that, Michael had no naysayers, no familial backbiting, no record-label pushback—other than the brief moment MTV didn’t want to play his music—and no obstacles beyond the controlling, money-hungry hands and eyes of Joe.
By highlighting the years before all the controversies surrounding Michael that came after 1984, and by giving us surface characters while presenting the only known villain—Joe Jackson—the film manages to erase the spectacle that has been attached to Michael’s brand for years, and gives us a show that focuses on the music.
Michael gravely misses the mark when stacked next to other musical biopics that delve deep into the complexities of musicians rising into—or falling from—stardom, such as the Robbie Williams biopic Better Man, written by Robbie Williams, Simon Gleeson, and Oliver Cole, or Tina Turner’s biopic What’s Love Got to Do with It, written by Tina Turner, Kurt Loder, and Kate Lanier. While these other films largely rely on interviews and artist perspectives to shape a narrative around the artists that feeds into the music, offering a humanizing view, Michael uses the space to give little more than a posthumous concert.
While a concert is good—the music is undeniably timeless and most welcome—with an economy in crisis due to rising gas prices, unemployment, and homelessness, this film would have fared just as well on a streaming platform. Perhaps the most puzzling part of the film is that we know six-time Tony Award winner, Logan, is more than capable of a full script with highly developed characters, as we have seen in films such as Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Gladiator.
In the end, Michael is a feel-good film made for Michael Jackson fans, presented as a carefully curated concert that highlights some of his highest-charting hits. With a little over 35 percent of the executive producers being Jacksons themselves, and a total of seven known members of the family playing key roles in the film’s production, it is no surprise that many of the more controversial details have seemingly been left on the cutting-room floor. The question is: is this ticket-grabbing stunt enough to make an impact on both new and old fans? With record-breaking stats showing it grossed nearly $206 million worldwide in its opening weekend, it’s safe to say it is more than enough.
Other Articles
No Comment! Be the first one.