Early reviews for the highly anticipated Michael Jackson biopic have taken fans by surprise.
Michael garnered massive buzz, fueled by the singer’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, stepping into the King of Pop’s shoes and direction from Antoine Fuqua. The marketing also generated strong excitement, positioning the film as a potential blockbuster.
However, that momentum stalled when critics shared their first reactions online.
The much-awaited biopic was largely panned, dramatically lowering expectations just days before its theatrical debut. It earned almost universally negative reviews, landing at a 31% critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here’s what critics are saying about the biopic.
#1 “The Dramatic Depth Of A Wikipedia Article”
The HoloFiles criticized the film for failing to humanize the King of Pop or offer an unbiased account of his complex life, resulting in a narrative “with the dramatic depth of a Wikipedia article.”
The reviewer noted that the biopic only briefly touches on Jackson’s loneliness and insecurities, which works to its detriment. However, Jaafar Jackson’s performance received praise, with the publication awarding the film a 4/10.
“It looks like my Saturday afternoon just cleared up,” one fan said on X.
Image source: theholofiles
Image credits: UniversalPictures / Frank Edwards/Fotos International/Getty Images
#2 “Painfully Bad”
A critic for The New York Times started their review by calling the biopic a “cheap and embarrassing bore.”
They criticized the film’s portrayal of Jackson as a “squeaky-clean hero” and found his origin story to be very “paint-by-numbers.” As a result, they gave it 1/4 stars, concluding that the film was “poorly directed,” “abysmally written,” and “painfully bad.”
One user on X argued, “Hollywood will still give it an Oscar for Best P*do Bio-pic.”
Image source: nypost
Image credits: UniversalPictures
#3 “Predictably Sanitized And Surprisingly Tedious”
In its review, IndieWire described Logan’s screenplay as “a paper-thin” while commending Jaafar Jackson’s impersonation of his uncle.
The publication noted that the film suffered from condensing the first twenty-six years of the singer’s life into a two-hour narrative, resulting in lapses of logic.
Despite entertaining re-creations of Jackson’s performance, they concluded that the biopic was “predictably sanitized and surprisingly tedious,” with an unsatisfying ending, and gave it a C- grade.
Image source: IndieWire
Image credits: UniversalPictures
#4 “An Unmitigated Disaster”
A critic for The Daily Beast found the biopic to be a “fluff piece” that sands every sharp edge from Jackson’s scandalous life.
Like others, they criticized the film for ignoring the allegations against Jackson, arguing that it resulted in a misleading and incomplete retelling of Jackson’s rise to becoming a pop icon.
“Whitewashed Michael Jackson movie is an unmitigated disaster,” they wrote.
Image source: thedailybeast
#5 “No Artistic Point Of View”
In its review, Empire wrote that the film deliberately ignores the singer’s legal issues to focus on his unprecedented pop-music career.
As a result, the publication opined that the biopic feels “very strongly like a cynical moneymaking machine.”
“A cosplaying tribute act with no artistic point of view,” they concluded, giving it 2/5 stars.
Image source: empiremagazine
Image credits: UniversalPictures
#6 “Surprisingly Dull”
In a mixed review, The Economist described the biopic as a more triumphant version of Jackson’s real-life story that ultimately ends in tragedy.
The publication praised the film’s recreation of the singer’s many iconic music numbers, calling them the “memorial Jackson needed.”
However, despite the highs of Jackson’s musical career, the reviewer ultimately found the movie to be “surprisingly dull” because of its one-note approach to its titular character.
Image source: TheEconomist
Image credits: UniversalPictures
#7 “A Little Depressing”
Rolling Stone argued that the film heavily banks on nostalgia around the King of Pop’s music while ignoring some of the more complicated feelings around him as an artist and person.
The reviewer opined that the story had too many contradictions and didn’t really feel like a biopic.
Despite entertaining re-creation of Jackson’s performances, they concluded that the biopic was “predictably sanitized and surprisingly tedious” with an unsatisfying ending, giving it a C- grade.
Image source: RollingStone
#8 “Obliterates Vital Context”
Writing for TheWrap, a critic said the film resorted to a familiar formula seen in recent musical biopics, ignoring serious allegations Jackson faced later in life.
They argued that, by doing so, the movie “exists in a vacuum that obliterates vital context and important people.” Much of the criticism targeted John Logan’s screenplay and Antoine Fuqua’s direction.
Image source: TheWrap
Image credits: UniversalPictures
#9 “Entirely The Opposite Of What He Was”
IGN heavily criticized the biopic, calling its depiction of Jackson “uninteresting” and “empty.”
The publication slammed the movie’s attempt to portray the singer as a “pure and altruistic” figure, instead describing the depiction as a “cartoonish caricature.”
In conclusion, they wrote, “This film is entirely the opposite of what he was, both as an iconic performer and a controversial tabloid figure.”
In response, one fan said, “Should’ve never been greenlit.”
Image source: IGN
#10 “Equivalent Of An After-School Special”
Writing on his blog, Paul Shirey criticized the movie for lacking dramatic depth despite Jackson leading a complex public and private life.
He praised Jaafar Jackson’s performance but felt the screenplay sidestepped his uncle’s legacy, resulting in something “equivalent to an after-school special in terms of drama.”
“Don’t know why you expected something different,” one user reacted on X.
Image source: arcticninjapaul
Follow Us
