Michael Jackson was the King of Pop. Michael, the new biopic from director Antoine Fuqua, is decidedly less regal - stumbling into theaters with a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 38 on Metacritic.
It's a disappointing result for a film that had genuine pedigree: Fuqua (Training Day, The Equalizer) directing, John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator) writing, and Jaafar Jackson - Michael's nephew - in the lead role. The pieces were there for something special. Instead, critics suggest we got something safe, sanitized, and forgettable.
Music biopics are having a moment. Bohemian Rhapsody earned $900 million and a Best Actor Oscar for Rami Malek. Elvis revitalized Baz Luhrmann's career and earned Austin Butler an Oscar nomination. Even Bob Marley: One Love, which critics dismissed, found an audience hungry for feel-good musical nostalgia.
But Michael Jackson presents unique challenges that Queen, Elvis Presley, and Bob Marley don't. His legacy is complicated - not just by the controversies that dogged him in life, but by the very real allegations that have emerged since his death. Leaving Neverland made it nearly impossible to separate the art from the artist in the way previous generations could.
A great Michael Jackson biopic would need to grapple with that complexity. It would need to show the genius, the innovation, the cultural impact - while also acknowledging the darkness. Not exploitatively, but honestly.
From what critics are saying, Michael doesn't quite manage that balance. The film apparently focuses on 's rise from the to global superstar, touching on his relationship with his father (played by ) and the pressures of fame. But it seems to shy away from the harder questions.
