The 127-minute trailer montage for the new Michael Jackson biopic is a frantic tapestry stitched together from every music movie cliché imaginable, the rumbling tour bus, the high-stakes recording studio, the soaring billboard charts, and the corporate boardrooms to portray the journey of the most controversial and groundbreaking music figures of the 20th century.
Though billed as the definitive cinematic portrait of the ‘King of Pop’, the film struggles to move beyond the familiar beats of the singer’s early life, chronicling his meteoric rise from the Jackson 5 era with a heavy hand.
This is a legendary artist who needs no introduction. But what about the famous off-camera Jackson, often described as a complicated, misunderstood figure with a childlike demeanour, manoeuvring the unprecedented fame with calculated control over his public image?
The new three-and-a-half-hour epic by Universal is eyeing a $700 million haul, and the early tracking shows it beating Freddie Mercury’s Bohemian Rhapsody by at least $2 million. According to Variety, the Jackson estate shelled out $15 million after lawyers overlooked a clause from the settlement with Jordan Chandler, Jackson’s accuser, requesting to refrain from mentioning him in the biopic.
There’s even a higher tag for photography over the top of the film’s $50 million budget. The film has actually stayed away from dramatising Jackson’s court battles and other real-life challenges and focuses on Jackson’s “very normal” life events.
The Jackson estate, led by the co-executors John Branca and John McClain, transitioned from a $500 million debt at the time of Jackson’s death to a $2 billion empire today.
Their primary goal has been curating the singer’s perfect reputation, his legacy, all the while ensuring profitability for future generations.
Less Of A ‘Man In The Mirror’
Early reviews for Antoine Fuqua’s Michael suggest the film is less of a “Man in the Mirror” and more of a carefully curated museum exhibit that aims to polish his tarnished image as a consequence of his enduring popularity worldwide. The movie gestures at a paradox: how to effectively portray the life of Jackson with visual artistry entirely from his time in front of the camera. It places focus on the music, Jackson’s contagious smile, which is cherished among his fans worldwide. The songs like Who’s Lovin’ You, I Want You Back, and Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough would be enough for his fans to buy a ticket.
While the film is a gambit to reclaim the late star’s legacy, and does so while occasionally focusing on the singer’s loneliness and isolation, the first press screenings ahead of an April 2026 release are still met with negative reviews.
Critics from major outlets, including Variety, The Guardian, and The BBC, have unified in their assessment of the Jaafar Jackson film, saying that while the musical performances are electrifying, the narrative is a “bland” attempt to protect the pop star’s estate’s legacy.
A Star is Born: Jaafar Jackson, Movie’s Sole Saving Grace
The performances of Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s real-life nephew, have been cited as the movie’s sole saving grace. Critics agree that Jaafar captures his uncle’s ethereal voice and supernatural dance abilities with haunting precision.
However, reviewers argue that even a transformative lead performance cannot save a script that The Guardian described as “clichéd” and “bad.”
The consensus suggests the film plays like a “greatest hits” compilation rather than a deep dive into a complex human being that Jackson was, leaving the audience with a surface-level retelling of the star’s rise to fame and his creative process in a fantasy world.
Biopic ”Splattered” on Rotten Tomatoes
The critical reception of the Jackson biopic has been reflected in the film’s early Rotten Tomatoes scores, which another outlet, Forbes, described as a “splatter.”
The initial batch of reviews has left the film struggling to find its footing, a surprising turn for a project that carried significant Oscar buzz throughout its production.
The primary point of contention is the film’s handling, or lack thereof, of the various controversies that defined Jackson’s later life, including aggression and defiance.
Critics have accused director Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter Anthony McCarten of “sanitising” the narrative surrounding Jackson’s stardom by glossing over the most polarising aspects of Jackson’s life and his story.
According to The BB, the film is a piece of “fan service” rather than a balanced biographical study and leaves the viewers with an unrelatable image of the hero.
Critics note that because the film was produced in conjunction with the Michael Jackson Estate, a certain level of “bowdlerisation” can be expected.
However, the extent of the whitewashing has taken the audience that has loved Jackson for years by surprise.
The outlet Variety notes that the film’s portrayal of Joe Jackson, who is played by Colman Domingo and the allegations that trailed the singer in his later years, feel strategically softened to preserve Jackson’s brand image rather than catering to the audience and their curiosity.
An Uncertain Box Office Future
Despite the critical drubbing, the film is still expected to be a massive commercial draw. The global reach of Jackson’s music and the curiosity surrounding Jaafar Jackson’s debut may somewhat insulate the film from its poor reviews. But as it stands, Michael appears to be a film trapped between two worlds—a vibrant celebration of a musical genius and a defensive shield against his troubled history and real-life challenges.
For Jackson’s beloved fans, who wish to see more of the “King of Pop,” the movie provides the spectacle, but for those seeking the man split from his musical image, the critics are warning that that is an aspect that they will find missing.
