Michael Jackson Biopic Reviews: A Bland Daytime TV Movie

Published: 22 April 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

The highly anticipated biographical film Michael, which promised to be the definitive cinematic portrait of the King of Pop, has debuted to a chorus of scathing reviews that have branded the $155-million production a “bland and barely competent daytime TV movie.” Despite the star power of director Antoine Fuqua and the uncanny physical transformation of Jaafar Jackson—the late singer’s real-life nephew—critics have largely dismissed the film as a hollow hagiography. As the movie prepares for its global theatrical release this Friday, the early consensus suggests that it is more interested in protecting the lucrative Jackson estate than in exploring the complex humanity of its subject.

Reviewers have been particularly pointed in their criticism of the film’s “sanitized” narrative, which many argue intentionally sidesteps the most controversial chapters of Jackson’s life. The screenplay, penned by John Logan, reportedly concludes its chronological march in the mid-1980s, effectively ending the story before the first public allegations of child sexual abuse surfaced. This choice has led several prominent critics to label the film “ghoulish” and “soulless,” with some suggesting it functions as little more than a high-budget promotional video designed to rehabilitate Jackson’s image for a new generation. The BBC went as far as to describe the film as a “frictionless, flat, paper-thin story” that lacks the dramatic tension required to sustain its two-hour runtime.

While the storytelling has been panned, the performance of Jaafar Jackson has been a rare point of praise. In his film debut, the 29-year-old has been lauded for his “electrostatic moves” and his ability to capture the specific cadence and vulnerability of his uncle’s voice. However, even this praise comes with a caveat; several critics noted that while the mimicry is masterful, the film provides the actor with little emotional depth to work with. Jaafar is joined by Colman Domingo as the “despicable villain” Joe Jackson and Nia Long as Katherine Jackson, though reviewers have noted that their performances are often obscured by “grotesque prosthetics” and a script that renders them as one-dimensional archetypes.

The technical execution of the film has also come under fire, with some reviews describing it as “technically sloppy” and “airless.” Despite Fuqua’s reputation for stylish filmmaking, Michael has been criticized for its reliance on medium shots and literal recreations of iconic music videos that offer no new perspective on the creative process. One particularly biting review compared the experience to visiting a “nine-figure wax museum,” suggesting that the film’s $150-million budget was spent on surface-level polish rather than narrative substance. The film currently holds a dismal 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, signaling a significant disconnect between the studio’s grand ambitions and the reality of the final product.

As fans prepare to flock to cinemas on 24 April, the controversy surrounding Michael appears to be its most interesting feature. While the film’s “greatest hits” soundtrack and nostalgic recreations of Thriller and Bad will undoubtedly drive box office success, the critical drubbing suggests a missed opportunity to create a meaningful work of art. By refusing to engage with the contradictions and shadows of Michael Jackson’s life, the film has been accused of turning a once-vibrant human being into a mere product, leaving audiences with a cinematic experience that is, in the words of one critic, “really, really bad.”

Check out Our Latest News