Michael Jackson biopic shows spectacle but avoids the man behind it

Ted Redsull

April 29, 2026
4 min read

Michael Jackson biopic shows spectacle but avoids the man behind it

This review looks at how the film handles Jackson’s life, performances and the controversies it avoids.

Antoine Fuqua’s Michael released this past week and looks set to be one of the biggest films of the year so far. This review looks at the Michael Jackson biopic, following his life from his childhood with the Jackson 5 through to his reinvention in the late 1980s. Filled with his music and characteristic dancing, Michael ends up being a basic biopic that’s more concerned with replaying the greatest hits than exploring who Michael Jackson really was.

Michael has been steeped in controversy since the very thought of it happening came about. From the allegations brought up against Michael Jackson over the years to the hands-on involvement his family and estate have had in the making of this film, there has always been a sense that this would be a difficult story to tell. It was reported that the film had to be cut down from around three hours to just over two, due to legal issues restricting what could and couldn’t be shown. Watching the end product, this feels apparent. While the overall narrative is constructed into a linear series of plot beats, most feel rushed or inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

What keeps the film afloat are the central performances that feel like they realise the weight they carry for the film’s success. Michael Jackson is portrayed by Jaafar Jackson, his nephew, who embodies his uncle and seems to be a talented performer himself. The dancing, mannerisms and overall presence are convincingly recreated, particularly in the concert sequences. Where the performance falters is not in what he can do, but in what he is not given to do, as the script renders everything outside of the musical numbers as little more than a thin mandatory plot.

Also of note is Colman Domingo as Joe Jackson, who acts as the primary antagonist. The performance occasionally leans towards the exaggerated, accompanied by heavy prosthetics and a more overtly malicious tone, but Domingo does what he can to ground the role. Even so, the character feels shaped more by the limitations of the script than by any deeper exploration.

The film’s biggest weakness is its reluctance to present Michael Jackson as anything other than an unproblematic figure. There are moments where he is faced with tragedy or difficult decisions, but there never seems to be a moment where he is allowed to be genuinely flawed. The film leans into the idea of Michael as a Peter Pan figure and avoids engaging with the complexities that might have given the story real weight. As a result, the film lacks dramatic tension and feels more like a sequence of set pieces, something we’ve seen in other recent productions such as Cronos at the BFI.

There are several moments where the film seems about to dig deeper into Michael Jackson’s life, but as soon as it begins, it moves on to the next musical sequence. While these moments are entertaining and well executed, they do little to build a fuller understanding of the person behind them, something a film like Rose of Nevada handles with more focus. This ends up feeling like a missed opportunity, especially given the scale of the subject.

Overall, while Michael will likely provide entertainment and emotion for fans, the film itself feels disappointingly surface level. The music is strong and Jaafar Jackson captures his uncle’s likeness well, but the end product never quite moves beyond a carefully constructed image. It presents the idea of Michael Jackson, rather than the reality of him.

Follow EyeOnLondon for clear reporting on London, culture and the wider world.

[Image Credit | Lionsgate]