Did we expect anything else? The review embargo has lifted on Antoine Fuqua’s “Michael,” and even the typically easy-to-please critics on Rotten Tomatoes are having none of it (27% rotten). It’s at 38 on Metacritic.
Last I checked, “Michael” was eyeing $80M+ on opening, and that is still a possibility. I don’t think anyone expected critics to rave about this one. The word “sanitized” appears frequently in reviews — I’ve posted a handful of reviews below.
Side note: we should never forget that viral early reaction of “Michael,” where “critic” Matt Ramos called the film “the greatest musical biopic of all-time.” The kind of over-the-top endorsement that exemplifies the current influencer-driven era of big studio psyops.
Side note: we should never forget the viral early reaction from “Michael,” where critic Matt Ramos called the film “the greatest musical biopic of all-time.” The kind of over-the-top endorsement often cited in discussions about influencer-driven marketing cycles and what I like to refer to as “big studio psyops.”
Actual critics wanted “Michael” to tackle the allegations that have long haunted Jackson’s legacy. How can you do that if the film ends in 1988? The controversies didn’t really enter the conversation until well into the ‘90s. The original version of “Michael” was supposed to address all that before one of his accusers put a halt to it, threatening to sue.
Apparently, the intended version of the film opened in 1993, with authorities carrying out a search of Jackson’s Neverland Ranch following allegations made by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. The film would have then traced Jackson’s journey from childhood fame through his rise to global superstardom, gradually circling back to the accusation and the legal battle brought by the Chandler family. That version was completely scrapped.
Fuqua said: “I shot [Michael] being stripped naked, treated like an animal, a monster.”
Even so, and even if the originally intended version had been released, it would likely still have painted a favorable portrait of Jackson. You see, leds than 24 hours before the embargo lifted, Fuqua was telling The New Yorker he was “not convinced” that Jackson did what he was accused of doing.
When I hear things about us — Black people in particular, especially in a certain position — there’s always pause. I was skeptical of some of the accusers’ parents, particularly Chandler’s father, who was recorded threatening to insure that Jackson was ‘humiliated beyond belief.
Fuqua acknowledged he didn’t know the truth behind the allegations made against Jackson over the years—and nobody ever will—but noted that “sometimes people do some nasty things for some money.”
Can you just imagine the response a sequel would get? Lionsgate is threatening just that. There’s over two hours of unused footage, most of it taking place in the ‘90s, that would tackle Jackson’s turbulent decade. How exactly do you mold such a movie without hitting landmine after landmine? If “Michael” turne out to be a $700M+ grossing blockbuster, Lionsgste might not have much of a choice but to greenlight this sequel.
Can you just imagine the response a sequel would get? Lionsgate is threatening just that. There’s over two hours of unused footage, most of it taking place in the ‘90s, that would tackle Jackson’s turbulent decade. How exactly do you mold such a movie without hitting landmine after landmine? If “Michael” turns out to be a $700M+ grossing blockbuster, Lionsgate might not have much of a choice but to greenlight this sequel.
