The moonwalk is back, but the man behind it remains as elusive as ever. Antoine Fuqua’s highly anticipated Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, has finally seen its first wave of critical reviews, and to put it bluntly: the “King of Pop” has been served a royal disappointment by the press.
Despite the immense buzz surrounding the project and the eerie physical transformation of the star’s real-life nephew, Jaafar Jackson, the film is struggling to find its footing with professional critics. As of today, the film languishes with a 32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a disheartening 38/100 on Metacritic. For a film meant to be a definitive portrait of a global icon, these numbers suggest that Michael is less of a cinematic masterpiece and more of a meticulously polished promotional video.
These are critic scores though and it wouldn’t be the first film in recent times that the audience score much higher than them. The Super Mario Galaxy movie saw a 43% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes and still managed to win audiences over sitting currently on 89% and it’s not alone.
This is the Critics, Not the Audience
The consensus among reviewers is that Michael is a film terrified of its own subject. While the cinematography and production design successfully capture the neon-soaked nostalgia of the eighties and nineties, the narrative reportedly lacks any significant emotional or psychological depth.
Industry whispers suggest that the film’s third act was heavily edited, with substantial reshoots ordered to comply with existing legal settlements. The result? A feature-length “greatest hits” reel that avoids the star’s well-documented scandals and legal battles entirely. Critics are calling it “damage control” rather than storytelling.
William Bibbiani of The Wrap didn’t mince words, stating the film “can’t be taken seriously… it’s just feature-length publicity.” This sentiment is echoed across the board, with many feeling the film functions as a sanitized version of history designed to keep the estate and the die-hard fans happy while ignoring the complexities that made Jackson such a polarizing figure.
Performance vs. Presence
If there is a silver lining in this “Thriller” of a mess, it is Jaafar Jackson. Critics are almost unanimous in their praise for his performance. He doesn’t just mimic his uncle; he inhabits him. From the soft-spoken cadence of his voice to the “picture perfect” precision of his choreography, Jaafar proves he belongs on the big screen.
However, as Danny Leigh from The Financial Times points out, a great impression doesn’t always equal a great film. Leigh noted that while the steps are perfect, “nothing moves,” suggesting that the film fails to translate Jackson’s stage magic into a compelling cinematic experience. The audience is shown the ecstasy of the fans, but without the context of Michael’s internal world, it feels hollow.
The Problem With One-Sided Narratives
The most stinging critiques focus on the film’s refusal to engage with reality. The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw described the film as “frustratingly shallow” and “inert,” noting that it even fails to adequately portray the trauma Jackson suffered at the hands of his father. By glossing over both the victimization and the allegations that followed, the film leaves a void where a story should be.
Rolling Stone’s David Fear summed up the experience of many viewers: you are reminded of the music and the magic, but you are also reminded that the legacy is “tainted,” no matter how hard the film “twists itself into knots” to distract you.
Who Is This Movie For?
Ultimately, Michael seems destined to be a fan-favourite while remaining a critical flop. If you are looking for a 127-minute celebration of Jackson’s musical genius then you will likely enjoy the ride. It offers a “warm rush of transporting pleasure” for those who want to relive the chart-topping glory days without the burden of historical nuance.
Michael opens in Australian cinemas on April 24th.
