‘Michael’ Is a Dazzling, Incomplete Spectacle About the King of Pop

“Everyone remembers where they were when that happened.” The phenomenon, called a flashbulb memory, occurs when people can recall their surroundings in vivid detail the moment they learn of shocking historic events — the moon landing, the fall of the Berlin Wall, September 11th, and more. I will always remember when I was 13 years old at my neighborhood swimming pool, on June 25th, 2009, learning that Michael Jackson had died.

It’s hard — likely impossible, really — to sum up the musician’s legacy in a film, but Antoine Fuqua’s Michael sees that as a challenge worth taking, attempting to capture the life of one of the most famous people in history within a two-hour runtime. In addition to being skeptical that anyone could pull that off, I’m quickly growing tired of the seemingly endless music biopics, from everything between Bohemian Rhapsody to Deliver Me From Nowhere, but I must admit, I left Michael pleasantly surprised. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, falling victim to clichéd and formulaic parts of the genre at some points while also playing it far too safe with its characters. But ultimately, the film successfully celebrates the legend’s essence while simultaneously serving as a complex, compelling family drama.

What Is ‘Michael’ About?

Image via Lionsgate

Michael depicts the life of Michael Jackson, and a good portion is dedicated to his early years in Gary, Indiana, as his domineering father Joe (Colman Domingo) attempts to mold him and his siblings into the Jackson 5 and reach superstardom at any cost. Contrastly, his loving mother Katherine (Nia Long) watches on conflicted about Joe’s harsh, abusive methods. Despite how difficult it is to witness, Joe’s ambition and training soon pay off, with the family skyrocketing to the top and making the move to a fancy home in Los Angeles when Michael is around 11.

But that immediate influx of fame comes with a massive amount of pressure for Michael. As he gets older, he struggles to find independence and identity, particularly due to the intense control of his father and his determination to keep the Jackson 5 together indefinitely. Michael may be one of the most beloved people in the world, but he’s also one of the loneliest, and that juxtaposition makes for a fascinating conflict. The film depicts iconic milestones fans will be itching to see, showcasing both the highs (like filming the “Thriller” music video) and lows (the infamous Pepsi commercial fire) of Michael’s career throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s at the peak of his popularity.

‘Michael’s Actors Completely Disappear Into Their Roles, But Most of Them Are Overly Sanitized

Image via Lionsgate

Michael wouldn’t work without an actor who could fully embody him. Full stop. It’s the title of the movie, after all. So the fact that they found not one, but two exceptional young performers to do just that with Juliano Valdi and Jaafar Jackson (yes, there is a relation; Jaafar is the late Michael’s nephew) is a major feat in and of itself. They both have the singing and dancing chops to pull it off — something the entire world will no doubt be looking at with critical eyes — but they also capture Michael’s unique presence and emotional journey. Valdi has a combination of boundless charisma and heartbreaking vulnerability that naturally makes you want to root for and protect him in equal measure. Jackson nails the smallest nuances and eccentricities one associates with Michael without ever feeling like a caricature. There is a devastating rawness to his performance, too, as you can see how much Michael is craving authentic connection yet unable to achieve it, ironically isolated despite everyone knowing his name.

It is because Valdi and Jackson are such strong performers that I wish the script trusted them more by allowing them to play with the less palatable, more complicated parts of his personality. Every human being makes mistakes and has flaws, but Michael only explores the darker, uglier side of one person: Joe. Domingo is unsurprisingly excellent, reminding us once again why he was nominated for an Oscar two years in a row. He can be downright terrifying, and I found myself tensing up and holding my breath every time he came onscreen. He’s hard to read, and the unpredictability and volatility simmering under his surface are palpable and intense.

And yet he is never a one-dimensional villain, either. Domingo imbues him with enough layers and subtleties that, even when Joe is being cruel or manipulative, it’s easy to believe he does truly have his family’s best interests at heart — even if there’s an element of selfishness to it, and even if it’s showcased in a twisted way. The scenes between Joe and Katherine are some of the film’s strongest and most riveting, with a fantastic performance by Long, though she ends up feeling a tad underutilized outside of her major scenes with Domingo. Frankly, there’s enough material for a whole separate film focused solely on their marriage.

‘Michael’ Is a Dazzling Spectacle (Albeit an Incomplete One)

Image via Lionsgate

In addition to Katherine and Joe’s storyline, the film also includes enough footage to make one believe there’s a whole second movie centering on Michael… and that’s because there is. The original film was reportedly around four hours long, and it’s fairly obvious that there were large chunks left on the cutting room floor. The most notable exclusion is that there’s no mention of the singer’s child abuse allegations. (Though there is a scene of him visiting children in the hospital, which is a strange inclusion considering the controversies are overlooked without note.) It’s a notable omission, as there is a clause in one of the accuser’s settlements barring his mention or depiction in Michael that forced the film into expensive reshoots, but it does contribute to the movie’s lack of cohesion.

The film’s ending is less than satisfactory; as magical as it is to see some of Michael’s largest concerts recreated, the direction is uneven, with the interspersed crowd shots taking you out of the performances rather than immersing you in the setting. The fact that the movie ends with several of them back-to-back makes it lose steam quickly, the moment the ending finally feels abrupt and jarring. The choice to conclude the movie with a Marvel-esque “Michael Jackson Will Return” card to tease a sequel comes off like a bit ripped out of a Saturday Night Live sketch, but rest assured, it’s very real. (Both producer Graham King and Lionsgate chairman Adam Fogelson have talked about the hope and strong possibility for a second movie, depending on this one’s performance. If they were smart, they would’ve called this one Jackson, due to its centering on his time in the Jackson 5, and the sequel Michael, since it would focus on his time as a solo artist, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Michael may not rewrite the musical biopic, but it does just enough to set itself apart and inject a bit of new life into the genre by leaning into the family drama at its core. The performances are top-tier across the board, with Valdi and Jackson immediately becoming stars to watch and Domingo and Long proving once again why they’re considered two of the best in the business. The level of craftsmanship — from the hair and makeup to the costumes and production design — is unmatched, helping to compensate for a weaker screenplay and inconsistent direction. It may not be a masterpiece, but I’ll make a trip to the theater when the inevitable sequel comes around. I have no doubt the King of Pop will be the new King of the Box Office, and unlike Jackson’s 1987 album, that’s not a Bad thing at all.

Release Date

April 24, 2026

Runtime

130 minutes

Writers

John Logan

Producers

Graham King, John Branca, John McClain

Pros & Cons

• The performances are excellent, with Juliano Valdi and Jaafar Jackson excellently embodying the King of Pop.
• Colman Domingo is a standout as the domineering yet complex patriarch Joe Jackson, and the film smartly leans into the family drama with him at the core.
• The craftsmanship is excellent, from the hair and makeup to costumes and production design.

• Many of the characters are overly sanitized, with the film afraid to lean into their flaws.
• The ending loses steam quickly, and the movie feels incomplete due to odd directorial choices, a weak screenplay, and obvious hopes for a sequel.