Very few artists have left a cultural footprint as large as Michael Jackson, and the new biopic “Michael” leans fully into that legacy. The film traces Jackson’s rise from child star to global icon with stunning technical precision.
While its craft is undeniable, its selective storytelling raises a more complicated question: how much truth can a biopic leave out before it becomes something else entirely?
From a production standpoint, “Michael” is difficult to fault. The film’s sound design and musical sequences capture the energy and scale of Jackson’s performances, translating decades of iconic hits into immersive scenes.
Camera work also plays a crucial role in this success, often shifting perspective to mirror the spectacle and isolation of stardom. These moments don’t just aim to recreate history — they elevate it, placing the audience inside the myth the film works so carefully to construct.
At the center of that illusion is Jaafar Jackson — Michael Jackson’s real nephew — whose portrayal of his uncle is both impressive and emotionally convincing. In several scenes, his physicality and vocal performance blur the line between actor and subject, creating the sense that the icon himself has returned to the stage. It’s the kind of performance that anchors the film’s ambition and, at times, reinforces its idealization.
That contrast becomes more apparent in the film’s supporting performances. Coleman Domingo delivers a chilling act as Joseph Jackson, portraying the father with an intensity that is, at times, terrifying. The film does not shy away from Joseph’s abuse, presenting it with a directness that adds depth to Michael’s early life. However, that willingness to confront discomfort does not extend evenly across the narrative.
The film’s portrayal of Michael remains restrained, often framing him as a near-flawless figure shaped primarily by those around him. This approach is especially significant given the long-standing allegations of child sexual abuse that have complicated Jackson’s legacy for decades.
While “Michael” acknowledges certain hardships, it avoids engaging with the most controversial aspects of his life, opting instead for a story that aligns more closely with glorification than interrogation.
That choice is not incidental. The film was developed with the involvement of the Estate of Michael Jackson, the legal entity responsible for managing Jackson’s assets, image and intellectual property after his death.
With that level of oversight, what is shown and what is omitted feels intentional. As a result, “Michael” watches less like a broad portrait and more like a carefully curated narrative, one that prioritizes legacy over complexity.
For audiences, the result is a film that is both captivating and incomplete. Fans of Jackson’s music will likely find plenty to admire in its performances and production value. However, viewers familiar with the broader scope of his life may notice the gaps, where difficult questions are left unasked and unresolved.
“Michael” succeeds as a piece of entertainment, but its reluctance to fully grapple with its subject leaves its impact unbalanced. In the end, the film pushes its audience to weigh whether exceptional craft can stand on its own, or whether the absence of truth undermines the story being told.
