When I think about musical biopics, there are very few subjects I find more fascinating than the lives of iconic musicians and the mystery behind how and why they create the art they do. I’ve spent countless hours on YouTube watching in-studio sessions, behind the scenes footage and documentaries about the creative process, seeing how the proverbial sausage is made. And somehow, I still can’t get enough of it.
So when it was announced that Michael, the Michael Jackson biopic directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Jaafar Jackson and Colman Domingo, was being developed by the same production company behind Bohemian Rhapsody, I was immediately intrigued.
As someone who remembers the exact moment and place I was when news broke of Michael Jackson’s death on June 25, 2009, that day transformed him from icon to legend in my mind. It was impossible to grow up in the 1990s and early 2000s without knowing who Michael Jackson was and understanding at least some part of the mythology surrounding him.
You didn’t just sing “Billie Jean.” You knew about Joe Jackson. You didn’t just watch the “Thriller” video every Halloween. You also saw Michael defended by Johnnie Cochran during one of the most publicized court cases in modern celebrity history. After Michael’s peak in the 1980s, the later years of his life were defined by controversy, tabloid fascination, dramatic physical changes and the slow decline of someone who once felt larger than life.
That’s what made the idea of a Michael Jackson biopic feel almost impossible from the beginning. How do you condense the life of someone who became famous as a child, achieved hall of fame success with his brothers and then evolved into arguably the biggest solo star the world has ever seen? And maybe the bigger question was: who could possibly play Michael Jackson?
Fuqua has always been a director capable of balancing spectacle with character. In Training Day, he helped craft one of the great modern screen performances through Denzel Washington’s morally complex portrayal of Alonzo Harris. That ability to explore duality makes him a fitting choice to tell the story of both the King of Pop and the man in the mirror.
Going into Michael, I intentionally avoided trailers, reviews and discourse surrounding the film. The only thing I knew beforehand was that the story ends during the Bad Tour in 1988, and honestly, that was the most important thing I could have known before sitting down in the theater. If you’re walking into Michael expecting a deep psychological examination of the allegations, scandals and controversies that surrounded Jackson later in life, you are only getting part of that story.
The film largely functions as a time capsule, chronicling Michael’s rise from a working-class family in Gary, Indiana to a global phenomenon. In many ways, it mirrors the classic American dream narrative. A large family with extraordinary musical talent rises from humble beginnings, captures the attention of the world through Motown and eventually produces one singular figure who transcends entertainment itself.
Is Michael glossy? Absolutely. Is it aggrandizing toward its subject? Without question. But the film does occasionally pull back the curtain enough to reveal flashes of Michael’s humanity beneath the celebrity mythology. Much like Bohemian Rhapsody or Elvis, the movie is less interested in investigative realism and more interested in capturing the emotional power these artists had over audiences.
In the theater where I watched Michael, every time one of the classics kicked in — whether it was “Billie Jean,” “Thriller,” “Bad” or “I Want You Back” — there was a palpable energy throughout the crowd. People were dancing in their seats, tapping friends on the shoulder, mouthing lyrics and smiling. It felt joyful, and honestly, that’s the word I associate most with this movie, joy. The film ends leaving audiences with the feeling of watching Michael Jackson fully realize his dream of becoming the biggest entertainer on the planet and creating what remains the highest-selling album of all time. Jaafar Jackson moonwalks all over this role in the best of ways and does both his father Jermaine, and his Uncle Michael, proud… obviously it’s in this kid’s blood.
Now, is it a perfect movie? No. But truthfully, you could make a hundred-hour series about Michael Jackson and still fail to capture every complicated aspect of his life. There is simply too much story there.
And yes, some viewers will absolutely leave disappointed that the film avoids diving deeply into the allegations and controversies that later defined public perception of Jackson. By ending where it does, Michael largely sidesteps the most culturally divisive chapter of his life and the controversies around his untimely passing. With talks already circulating about a potential sequel, it feels inevitable that those issues will eventually have to be addressed. Judging this film purely on what it sets out to accomplish, though, I can recommend it.
