‘Michael’: What The Reviews Are Saying About Michael Jackson Biopic

The critics are weighing in on big-budget Michael Jackson biopic Michael, which releases globally this weekend.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan, the movie covers the Jackson 5 period in the early ’60s through to the iconic singer’s early solo career. The ‘King Of Pop’ is played by his nephew Jaafar Jackson in his film debut with support from Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Miles Teller, Colman Domingo, and more.

While the film is seemingly on course to do some strong box office and can call on a huge built-in fan base, the Lionsgate musical is encountering some choppy critical reaction, at least according to the early returns. The film is currently running at 27% from 48 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Deadline’s Pete Hammond had one of the more positive responses to the film, writing: “The iconic songs you hear from “Billie Jean” to “Beat It” to “Thriller” to “Ben” are all vintage MJ, gloriously remastered and superbly lip-synched by Jaafar and Juliano Valdi, who plays the younger Michael. Jaafar’s casting might have seemed a bit too all in the family, but the fact that he doesn’t do his own singing didn’t bother me, because this guy channels Uncle Michael in uncanny ways and simply sells this performance with all the right dance moves and sharp dramatic talent to make us believe Michael Jackson is once again with us.”

Jaafar Jackson “dazzles” in the “feel-good” biopic, which will be “eaten up by fans”, Hammond added.

USA Today was also in favour, giving it three stars out of four, and heralding a “new star in Jaafar Jackson”: “The film reminds the generations who witnessed Jackson’s ascension in real time of the extent of his singularity and educates younger audiences about the magnitude of his talent and scope.”

ScreenRant was also positive, calling the film “masterful”, while there were middling notices in Variety and THR. The former calls it “effective”, while the latter calls it “sanitized but more soulful than you might expect”.

Many others weren’t so upbeat. Roger Ebert gave the movie one star, positing of the family’s involvement in the project: “In every cloying moment, you can notice their fingerprints all over this plastic jukebox picture. “Michael” has already caused many to question what’s missing: Janet Jackson (who indeed doesn’t exist in this “universe”) and any reference to the singer’s legal troubles (though that bankrupted moral and narratively corwardly positioning by Fuqua certainly doesn’t help either). But the absence of those elements isn’t what breaks this insipid biopic. It’s the lack of any complex interest in Michael himself.”

The BBC was also damning about the film, giving it one star, and describing it as “a bland and barely competent daytime TV movie”.

IGN calls the film “really, really bad”: “It’s astonishing to note just how short the movie falls of the genre’s already low expectations. In fact, it does the one thing no production should be able to. It makes Michael Jackson — the King of Pop and one of the most controversial, electric, groundbreaking figures of the 20th century — utterly boring.”

Indiewire calls the film “Glossy, sanitized, and surprisingly dull”, while Empire gives the film two stars out of five: “Across this two-hour-plus runtime, there was apparently no room to mention Jackson’s controversies. Instead, it’s a deeply generic music biopic, the kind that would make even Dewey Cox raise his eyebrows.”

The Guardian also gave the film two stars out of five, writing: “Rammed with every music-movie cliche, an almost mute supporting cast and a Michael who only produces endless smiley blandness, this is a frustratingly shallow film.”

The Financial Times calls it a “stilted waxwork of a movie”, while The Independent describes it as “a ghoulish, soulless cash grab”. The Telegraph also gives it two out of five, calling it a “skin-tingling whitewash,” while Slash Film gives it 5/10: “Michael is a mere cotton candy machine of a movie. At some point, we need to face the hard stuff,” it says.