April 27, 2026 · Watch the official trailer
With the proliferation of musical biopics, it’s only a matter of time before every major pop icon becomes immortalized on the silver screen.
And yet, for the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, the world’s greatest showman doesn’t quite receive the level of spectacle one might expect for the hitmaker behind “Billie Jean,” “Thriller,” and “Beat It.”
Director Antoine Fuqua’s simply titled “Michael,” released in theaters this weekend, may prove popular and profitable thanks to worldwide familiarity with its subject’s music. But as a film, it’s so thinly written, functioning more as a partial jukebox musical, that no collection of classic Motown and ’80s synth-pop hits can overcome the fact that it’s an underwhelmingly written and shot mess.
The film covers Jackson’s early life as the youngest and lead member of the infamous Jackson 5, as well as the group’s complicated relationship with their controlling manager and father, Joe Jackson. It also tracks Michael’s breakout into solo superstardom through “Off the Wall” and “Thriller.”
Fuqua’s film spans more than two decades, but only scratches the surface of its subject, focusing more on showcasing Michael Jackson as a spectacle than as a person. The film gestures toward his body dysmorphia, his struggles with fame, and the isolating weight of the spotlight, but these ideas are only hinted at and never fully realized, particularly for a narrative that ends in 1987.
That said, the film does find strength in its two central performances. Jackson’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, melts into the role of his uncle during his rise to mega-stardom. There’s a thoughtful, emotional, introverted respect for Michael’s legacy and charitable spirit that comes through in his performance.
It’s clear the younger Jackson understands the weight of inhabiting this figure, and that awareness carries throughout the film. The physical resemblance is striking and almost unrecognizable at time as someone playing Michael rather than the man himself, especially in performance sequences, most notably during the recreation of the iconic “Thriller” video.
Jaafar also goes to great lengths to replicate the high-pitched vibrato of Michael’s speaking voice during this era. However, that faithfulness leaves little room for him to fully express the inner turmoil and loneliness that defined so many of Michael’s most pivotal moments.
Meanwhile, Colman Domingo’s turn as Joe Jackson elevates what could easily read as moustache-twirling villainy into something far more grounded, a rigid, overbearing father whose presence looms over every scene.
In lesser hands, moments of discipline or confrontation with industry figures might feel disjointed or exaggerated, but Domingo brings a measured physicality and controlled intensity that keeps Joe from slipping into caricature.
The supporting cast, while undeniably talented, isn’t given nearly enough screen time or development to become particularly compelling. Nia Long brings much-needed warmth as Michael’s mother, and her scenes with Jaafar Jackson are among the most genuinely affecting in the film.
But “Michael” moves far too quickly between moments for any of the Jackson brothers to receive meaningful attention, with several members of the family omitted entirely. The result only deepens the film’s disjointed feel.
When the film does lean into its theatricality, however, it briefly comes alive. There are several large-scale musical sequences that capture the larger-than-life persona of the King of Pop, most notably a pitch-perfect recreation of the making of the iconic “Thriller” music video, as well as an awards show performance of “Billie Jean” midway through the film.
The closing sequence, built around the “Bad” tour, delivers the kind of show-stopping energy the film too often lacks elsewhere. There’s a dynamic visual approach in these moments that gives them a sense of scale and immediacy, and Jaafar Jackson’s ability to embody his uncle’s innovative stage presence genuinely transports audiences back to the height of 1980s pop.
Unfortunately, those moments are few and far between. Screenwriter John Logan and producer Graham King, the latter having previously found far greater success with the Queen biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody,” overload the narrative with half-measures and partially developed side stories. These threads hint at deeper explorations of Michael’s humanity but never coalesce into a cohesive or satisfying structure.
While other musical biopics have more seamlessly integrated an artist’s discography into the fabric of their storytelling, “Michael” does not. Instead, it treats these classic pop songs not as extensions of Michael Jackson’s personality, but as a separate persona he adopts when stepping on stage. The music becomes less a window into who he is, and more a performance mask the film never fully removes.
It’s also clear the film has undergone significant reshaping. Whether through reshoots or heavy intervention in the editing room, Fuqua and the producers appear to have pieced together a version of the story that feels fragmented rather than cohesive. Scenes often play like isolated moments rather than parts of a unified whole, reinforcing the film’s uneven structure.
And yet, the elements that do work, the performances, the scale of the musical sequences, and the recreation of iconic moments, are strong enough to make “Michael” worth experiencing on the big screen.
Even in its most frustrating and incomplete form, there’s still value in seeing the legacy of one of music’s most influential figures brought to life in a theatrical setting, though cinephiles may find little reason to seek it out beyond that spectacle.
Leave a Reply