Show summary Hide summary
The Michael Jackson biopic Michael just debuted with a stunning 35% on Rotten Tomatoes, disappointing critics across the board. Released April 24, 2026, the Antoine Fuqua directed film featuring Jaafar Jackson has become one of the most panned music biopics in recent memory, despite strong audience scores.
🔥 Quick Facts
- Critics Score: 35% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes based on 105 reviews
- Audience Score: 96% fresh, showing massive divide between critics and fans
- Release Date: April 24, 2026 in US theaters nationwide
- Common Criticism: Called a sanitized whitewash avoiding Jackson’s darker controversies
Critical Backlash: Whitewash and Soulless Cash Grab
Film critics have delivered scathing reviews of the Michael Jackson biopic, with publications calling it a sanitized whitewash and ghoulish cash grab. The BBC noted that reviewers described the film as avoiding “the elephant in the room” by not addressing the sexual abuse allegations that defined Jackson’s later life.
The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw wrote that the film is “rammed with every music-movie cliche” and plays “like a 127-minute trailer montage.” The Independent’s Clarisse Loughrey gave it just one star, calling it a ghoulish, soulless cash grab that turns Jackson into “a product” rather than a human being.
Summer House Season 10 finale airs tonight with spinoff premiere
John Travolta receives honorary Palme d’Or at Cannes, directs debut film
The Sanitized Story: Missing Key Controversies
Michael originally included footage addressing Jackson’s abuse allegations and Jordan Chandler scandal, but reshoots scrapped these scenes entirely after Jackson estate lawyers discovered non-disclosure agreement clauses that prohibited depicting the allegations. The film now ends in 1988, before the first accusations emerged.
Telegraph critic Robbie Collin called this avoidance a “borderline-fatal problem,” arguing that ignoring such major controversies “strips the final film of any humanity, good and bad.” IndieWire’s Kate Erbland described it as “glossy, sanitised, and surprisingly dull.”
Jaafar Jackson Praised, Film Panned
| Aspect | Reception |
| Lead Performance | Jaafar Jackson widely praised for uncanny resemblance |
| Director Antoine Fuqua | Critics fault storytelling approach and sanitization |
| Musical Numbers | Praised as brilliant but overshadow narrative |
| Overall Structure | Called shallow, cliched, and corporate hagiography |
While Jaafar Jackson’s performance earned near-universal praise for capturing his uncle’s dance moves and stage presence, critics hammered the screenplay by John Logan and direction by Fuqua. USA Today’s Melissa Ruggieri complimented Jackson’s “liquid dance moves” and “soft-spoken cadence,” yet the overall film failed to resonate.
“The film turns the realities of a tragic, deeply complicated life into a sanitized popcorn film.”
— Derek Smith, Slant Magazine
A Tale of Two Audiences: Critics vs. Fans
Perhaps no film in recent memory has revealed such a massive divide between critical and audience reception. While Michael scored just 35% with critics, audiences gave it a 96% verified audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. The film also earned an A- CinemaScore, suggesting Jackson fans and general audiences embrace the nostalgic celebration.
Hollywood Reporter’s David Rooney explained the split, writing that for “lifelong fans who cherish the music, the movie delivers” as “a warm rush of transporting pleasure.” Yet critics argued the film avoids any serious examination of Jackson’s biography, choosing musical numbers over meaningful character development.
Will This Damage the Jackson Estate’s Reputation Further?
The Michael Jackson estate backed the film financially and controls its tone, evident in the scrapped third act addressing abuse allegations. Yet critics question whether sanitizing Jackson’s story ultimately does more harm than good. Jackson’s daughter Paris already distanced herself from the premiere, criticizing films that pander to fans living in “the fantasy.”
Empire’s John Nugent called the film a “cynical moneymaking machine,” while BBC’s Nicholas Barber dismissed it as “a bland and barely competent daytime TV movie.” With such harsh critical assessments, questions linger about whether transparency would have served Jackson’s legacy better than continued omission.
Sources
- Forbes – Critical reviews and Rotten Tomatoes score breakdown from 105 reviews
- BBC News – Film criticism covering whitewash allegations and cast performances
- The Guardian – Peter Bradshaw’s detailed review of the biopic’s failures
