Michael (2026)

The review praises the captivating early rise-to-fame story, performances, music and choreography but faults the film for refusing to address later controversies, making it a structurally complete but only half-told story and a whitewash. It calls the omission a borderline-fatal flaw.

The critic deems it a squeaky-clean, PR-driven hagiography that reaffirms Jackson’s genius while erasing controversies. Jaafar Jackson’s central performance and the film’s professional sheen are noted positively amid the overall dismissal.

The film is criticised as an aggressively anodyne, surface-level box-ticker that sanitises the story and follows a rigid biopic formula, with the Jackson estate’s influence evident in its curated image. It succeeds mainly in capturing the electrifying stage presence and music of the performer.

The film is a generic, hagiographic biopic that ignores controversies, focuses on career milestones with impressive performances but feels like a cynical cash grab with no artistic point of view.

The biopic is a transparent bid to redeem the King of Pop by sidestepping scandals and turning a complicated life into sanitized popcorn entertainment. The critic singles out the focus on early career and Jaafar Jackson’s embodiment of the role while criticizing the lack of impartiality and depth.

The critic finds the film a frustratingly shallow and inert cruise-ship entertainment that assembles every music-biopic cliché while avoiding the central issues in Jackson’s life. It offers bland smiley blandness from the lead and little depth beyond surface spectacle.

The critic calls it a ghoulish, soulless cash grab that sanitizes Jackson's legacy by omitting controversies and portraying him as a saintly figure who helps children, focusing instead on mechanical recreations of his career highlights.

The film is a disingenuous attempt to rehabilitate Jackson as a child saviour despite allegations, though enjoyable with mesmerizing performances; it should never have been made as it's repellent in its portrayal.

The film feels like a wax museum rather than a movie, with little dramatic tension or interiority and an uncanny-valley resemblance in its restaged highlights. The critic singles out the sanitized brand rehabilitation and lack of psychological depth for complaint.

The critic views the biopic as an open-hearted but deliberately narrow story that celebrates Jackson's talent and drive while ending before the allegations, allowing it to highlight his independence from his father without addressing darker elements. She singles out Jaafar Jackson's note-perfect performance and the music for praise but notes the film's flat-footed direction and careful evasions.

The critic calls it a bland biopic that glosses over Michael Jackson’s troubled legacy and reduces him to a blandly inspirational cipher. The musical performances are singled out as galvanising.

The biopic is boilerplate on the surface but thoughtful and intimate underneath, with a surprisingly affecting melancholy undercurrent despite its sanitized approach. The critic singles out Jaafar Jackson’s uncanny performance and the phenomenal musical sequences for praise.

The review criticizes the film for sanitizing Jackson's story by omitting all mention of the child sexual abuse allegations, calling this a conspicuous and dismaying distortion driven by the estate. It praises the detailed portrayal of backstage business maneuvers and the young Michael's isolation but faults the thin dramatic insight into the adult character's personal life and artistic consciousness.

The critic argues that the estate-produced biopic flattens Michael Jackson into an uplifting tale of triumph over his domineering father after reshoots removed earlier material addressing allegations, turning it into a standard-issue, fairy-tale-like musician story. She notes the songs and dancing are great but criticizes the clunky final scenes and the way it scrubs the subject's reputation.

The critic finds the music electrifying but faults the film as soft-soaping hagiography that ignores controversies and hits dreary biopic beats. It is described as an act of fan and estate service.

The review finds the conventional biopic surprisingly effective as a middle-of-the-road story that focuses on Jackson freeing himself from his father and captures the electricity of his artistry and performances. It praises Jaafar Jackson's commanding lead performance for nailing the look, voice, moves, and vulnerability but notes the film avoids any reference to the allegations, leaving a void at the center.

The critic praises Jaafar Jackson's uncanny channeling of Michael Jackson in dance and performance, but notes the film is a predictable, feel-good biopic that avoids deeper insights or controversies. The musical sequences stand out as superbly choreographed highlights.

The critic finds the film pleasantly surprised despite clichés and playing it safe, successfully celebrating Michael Jackson's essence while serving as a complex family drama focused on his relationship with his father. Praises the standout performances, especially Colman Domingo as Joe Jackson and the young actors portraying Michael.

The critic finds it a sanitized but beautifully performed biopic that celebrates more than it questions, praising Jaafar Jackson's performance and the music while noting avoidance of controversies.

The film is a slick, safe biopic focusing on Jackson's rise and hits up to the early 80s, with strong performances and music recreations, but it feels like a glossy advert rather than a deep exploration, avoiding controversy.

Calls it a predictably overly-sanitized biopic, polished but flavorless paean that avoids deep examination of Jackson's life, praising some performances but criticizing the lack of depth.

The critic finds the biopic a sanitized deification of Michael Jackson that avoids allegations by blaming his father, succeeding mainly through Colman Domingo's over-the-top performance as the villainous Joe. It works as camp or devotional art but struggles as a proper biopic.

The review criticizes the biopic for its incomplete narrative that ignores controversies and key figures, resulting in a frustrating and shallow portrayal despite strong performances and recreations. It feels like feature-length publicity rather than a substantive story.

Praises the music, Jaafar Jackson's performance and some set pieces but notes it's compromised by legal issues, sanitized, cliché elements.