I finally watched “Michael,” a Michael Jackson biopic, and honestly, I understand why fans loved it even while critics hated it.
This movie has something modern Hollywood films are slowly losing: it actually feels watchable with family. No endless vulgarity. No extreme shock scenes. No, trying too hard to be “dark” or “edgy” every five minutes. It feels old-school in a good way.
At the center of everything is Jaafar Jackson, a person who made this movie genuinely impressive. Trust me are moments where I completely forget that I was not watching Michael Jackson himself.
The body movement. The stage energy. The eye expressions. The dancing. Even the tiny pauses while performing. Jaafar did not simply imitate his uncle; he studied him deeply.
Critics may dislike the film, but almost everybody agrees Jaafar carried it. And honestly? Nobody else could probably have played Michael this convincingly.
That is why the audience scores became so different from the critic scores. While critics gave the movie only 39% on Rotten Tomatoes and 39 on Metacritic, audiences pushed it to an incredible 97% audience score because fans felt emotionally connected to what they were watching; to them, the movie felt less like a cold biography and more like attending one final Michael Jackson concert.
But despite all the praise, the film also has serious problems that stop it from becoming a truly legendary biopic. Let’s say one of the biggest issues is that the movie skips too many important people and moments from Michael Jackson’s life.
How do you make a Michael Jackson biopic and barely include Diana Ross? This is the woman Michael himself considered almost like family; she helped introduce the Jackson 5 to the world through Motown. She mentored him. He admired her deeply for decades. Michael even named Diana Ross as guardian of his children in his will if his mother could not care for them. Yet in the movie, she is almost invisible.
And the strange part is that actress Kat Graham was actually reported to have filmed scenes as Diana Ross, but they were removed from the final cut because of legal complications. That explains why the movie sometimes feels like pieces are suddenly missing.
The same problem happens with Michael’s own family; Janet Jackson, one of the biggest pop stars in history and Michael’s own sister, is basically absent. Fans were shocked by this omission because Janet was not just “another sibling.” She became one of the defining artists of her generation and shared major moments with Michael, both personally and professionally.
The movie also leaves out important Jackson family members like Randy Jackson and Rebbie Jackson almost entirely.
And then there are the historical mismatches. Some scenes look visually beautiful but do not match the real timeline of Michael’s life.
For example, several fans noticed that the movie rearranges the timing of some music videos and performances around the “Thriller” era. Others pointed out costume and makeup inconsistencies between certain years being portrayed on screen.
At times, the movie feels like it rushes through events instead of letting them breathe naturally. Let’s say The Jackson 5’s rise happens too quickly, important creative moments are skipped, and the movie barely shows Michael actually building songs, writing music, or crafting the artistic genius.
That is why many critics described the movie as “safe,” “sanitized,” or more like a “greatest hits playlist” than a deep character study.
And honestly, I understand that criticism. The film feels scared of slowing down and exploring uncomfortable or emotional depth.
The abuse from Joe Jackson is disturbing without becoming excessively graphic. One scene involving a child being beaten with a belt is difficult to watch. Another intense moment recreates the famous stage pyrotechnics accident where Michael’s hair caught fire during a Pepsi commercial shoot.
There are also mild profanities and suggestive dance scenes, meaning the movie is not completely “family friendly” in the purest sense, even if it feels far softer than most modern music biopics.
But what makes the film survive all these flaws is the feeling it gives Michael Jackson fans. For two hours, it feels like Michael is alive again.
And honestly, even with the missing people, missing moments, timeline problems, and rushed storytelling, that emotional connection is why many fans walked out loving the film, while critics walked out frustrated.
Personally, I would give “Michael” an 80%. Not because it is a flawless movie, but because it succeeds at the hardest thing possible: making people feel Michael Jackson’s presence again.
