The 2026 biopic Michael has arrived with one of the most recognizable names in music at its center. Directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Michael Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson, the film revisits Jackson’s childhood, rise with the Jackson 5, and transformation into a global solo superstar. Current Michael Jackson movie reviews are sharply divided: critics have largely questioned the film’s depth, while audiences have responded much more warmly.
That split is the key to understanding Michael. It can be an effective musical spectacle while still feeling incomplete as a portrait of a complicated public figure.
Michael Jackson Movie Reviews: What Are Critics Saying?
The critical response has been considerably harsher than the audience reaction. Rotten Tomatoes currently lists Michael at 38% from critics, compared with a 97% audience score from more than 25,000 verified ratings. The film was released in U.S. and UK cinemas on April 24, 2026.
The central criticism is not that the film lacks production value. It is that the story is selective.
Several major publications have argued that the biopic spends too much time celebrating Jackson’s music and too little time exploring the contradictions surrounding his life. The Guardian described it as shallow and overly familiar, while RogerEbert.com criticized its playlist-like structure and limited dramatic perspective.
Time Out reached a similar conclusion, describing the film as a soft treatment of Jackson’s public image and pointing out that it leaves much of his later life outside the story.
Why the reviews are so divided
The disagreement largely comes down to expectations.
Fans looking for concert-style recreations, famous songs, costumes, choreography, and nostalgia may find plenty to enjoy. Viewers expecting a comprehensive psychological biography are more likely to leave frustrated.
Variety was substantially more positive about the movie’s ability to capture Jackson’s electricity and praised Jaafar Jackson’s performance, particularly his physicality and ability to reproduce his uncle’s mannerisms.
| Aspect | Critical View | Audience Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Jaafar Jackson | Major strength | Highly praised |
| Musical sequences | Visually impressive | Biggest attraction |
| Storytelling | Too conventional | Easy to follow |
| Historical depth | Considered limited | Less important to fans |
| Later-life controversies | Major omission | A major point of debate |
| Overall experience | Mixed to negative | Strongly positive |
Jaafar Jackson Is the Film’s Biggest Strength
Among the most consistent positives in Michael Jackson movie reviews is Jaafar Jackson’s performance.
The actor had never led a major feature film before taking the role of his uncle, making the result particularly notable. He captures Jackson’s stage movement, vocal mannerisms, posture, and physical delicacy with striking precision. Variety and other reviewers have singled out his performance as one of the film’s strongest elements.
Young actor Juliano Krue Valdi also plays an important role as the younger Michael. The early sections focus on the intense environment surrounding the Jackson family’s musical ambitions and the relationship between Michael and his father, Joe Jackson.
Colman Domingo brings considerable force to Joe, while Nia Long plays Katherine Jackson. Critics have generally found these performances stronger than the material gives them room to develop.
đź’ˇ Pro Tip: If you’re watching Michael mainly for the music, revisit Jackson’s original performances afterward. Comparing the film’s recreations with the real Motown 25, “Thriller,” “Billie Jean,” and other archival moments makes the production choices much more interesting.
The Music and Performance Scenes Work Best
This is where Michael Jackson movie reviews tend to become more favorable.
Fuqua has extensive experience directing visually driven material, and that background is apparent in the recreated performances. The film revisits major moments from Jackson’s rise, including the Motown 25 performance and the creation of the Thriller video.
The problem is that some reviewers believe these sequences reproduce moments audiences can already watch in their original form. RTÉ Entertainment praised the execution of several musical recreations but questioned whether they deserved so much screen time at the expense of dramatic development.
That criticism is fair. Jackson’s real performances are extraordinary historical documents. A successful biopic therefore needs to offer something beyond imitation. Michael sometimes does, particularly when it explores the pressure surrounding his childhood and early career, but it does not do so consistently.
What the Movie Leaves Out
This is the most controversial issue surrounding the film.
Michael concentrates primarily on Jackson’s rise and ends during the late 1980s rather than providing a full account of his adult life. As a result, many of the controversies and legal issues that shaped public discussion of Jackson are not depicted.
That omission has become central to the critical debate because Jackson faced allegations of child sexual abuse during his lifetime, which he denied. He was acquitted of all charges in his 2005 criminal trial.
The film’s limited timeline means viewers should not treat it as a complete biography. Critics including The New Yorker and TheWrap have argued that the sanitized approach makes it difficult for the movie to engage meaningfully with the full complexity of Jackson’s public legacy.
This distinction matters. A movie can focus on one period of a person’s life, but audiences should understand that Michael is specifically a partial portrait rather than a definitive account of Jackson’s entire career.
Is Michael Worth Watching?
The answer depends heavily on what you want from a Michael Jackson film.
If your priority is performance, music, visual recreation, and nostalgia, the movie has genuine appeal. Jaafar Jackson is a compelling screen presence, and the musical sequences provide much of the energy that critics found missing from the narrative.
If you want a challenging biography that investigates Jackson’s contradictions, later career, controversies, and personal relationships in depth, the film is unlikely to satisfy you.
The current split between a low critics’ score and a very high audience score makes that distinction unusually clear.
đź“Ś Key Takeaway: The strongest Michael Jackson movie reviews agree on one point: Jaafar Jackson’s performance is the film’s standout achievement. The bigger disagreement is whether spectacular musical recreations can compensate for a selective story.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Michael a true story?
Michael is a dramatized biographical film based on Michael Jackson’s life and career. It focuses heavily on his childhood, the Jackson 5, his emergence as a solo performer, and his rise during the 1970s and 1980s. Because the movie covers only part of his life, it should not be considered a complete biography.
How long is the Michael movie?
The film runs for roughly 127–130 minutes, depending on the source’s listed runtime. Rotten Tomatoes lists it at 2 hours and 7 minutes, while some reviewers give a slightly different runtime.
Who plays Michael Jackson in the movie?
Jaafar Jackson plays the adult Michael Jackson, while Juliano Krue Valdi portrays him as a child. Jaafar is Michael Jackson’s nephew and the son of Jermaine Jackson. His physical transformation and performance style have been among the most consistently praised aspects of the film.
Did critics like the Michael Jackson biopic?
Critics were largely negative or mixed, while audiences were substantially more enthusiastic. The difference is unusually large: Rotten Tomatoes currently reports a 38% critics’ score and a 97% verified audience score.
Does Michael cover Michael Jackson’s entire life?
No. The movie primarily covers Jackson’s childhood and rise to superstardom, ending during the late 1980s. Several reviewers have emphasized that major portions of his later life are outside the film’s narrative.
Final Verdict
The fairest Michael Jackson movie reviews recognize two different films competing for attention: a polished musical tribute and an incomplete biography.
Michael succeeds when Jaafar Jackson takes the stage and the film recreates the excitement of Jackson’s imperial pop years. It is much less convincing when it tries to compress a deeply complicated life into a conventional inspirational narrative.
For longtime fans, the musical spectacle may be enough to make the movie worthwhile. For viewers seeking a balanced examination of Jackson’s entire legacy, it is better approached as one carefully limited chapter rather than the final word on his life.
