UPDATE: While critics have trashed Antoine Fuqua’s Michael, which hit theaters nationwide at noon today, audiences seem to be responding far more positively. The film earned an “A-“ CinemaScore, which is a strong result, especially given the harsh, even Razzie-leaning tone of many early reviews. Furthermore, the Popcornmeter is at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.
This is good news for Lionsgate who are banking on word of mouth to drive “Michael” to box office glory.
If we look at the CinemaScore of other music biopics, Michael lands in familiar territory with the same “A–” rating that “Elvis” and “Rocketman” received. “Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere” earned a “B+,” while “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Bob Marley: One Love” both scored an “A.” It’s worth noting that “A Complete Unknown” was not polled.
One of the most vocal defenders pushing back against the critical establishment has been Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew. He has used social media to argue that reviewers are approaching the film with pre-set biases about Jackson. He believes the public will ultimately decide the narrative.
“Sorry media, u don’t get to control the narrative anymore of who Michael Jackson truly was,” Taj wrote on X. “The public gets to watch this movie… they will decide for themselves. And you can’t handle that.”
In a follow-up post, he added, “Can’t wait till some critics have to eat crow. And yes I will be that petty.”
This broader pushback on critics is largely rooted in the belief that media is unfairly judging the film based on what it does not include, rather than what it is actually trying to portray. From that perspective, some argue that reviewers expected a controversy-driven “hit piece,” rather than a film focused on music, performance, and a very defined phase of Jackson’s career—well before the most sensational aspects of his later life.
Now, having seen the film—which is broadly similar to “Bohemian Rhapsody” in terms of quality—I’d describe it as fine, watchable, fairly by-the-books, and largely carried by strong music and performances. It is not the disaster some reviews suggest. Rather, it’s a fairly vanilla, fan-service-oriented crowd-pleaser that does exactly what it sets out to do—the very definition of a C+ or 2.5/5 kind of film. A fairly conventional, middle-of-the-road biopic that feels like a well-made straight-to-streaming movie, but is elevated by its acting and its more polished, cinematic visuals, thanks to Dion Beebe’s photography.
The criticism that the film ignores Jackson’s later controversies also feels somewhat overstated, given that the original plan reportedly involved addressing them, but those plans were ultimately altered amid legal concerns tied to one of the accusers.
As for any sequel prospects, even if Michael were to become a massive hit, it’s hard to imagine a follow-up set in the 1990s or beyond that doesn’t directly confront the allegations in some form—most likely in a manner carefully shaped by the Jackson estate. And if the backlash to this installment is already heated, it’s not hard to imagine a potential sequel sparking even more controversy, if it ever happens at all.
EARLIER: 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.
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.
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.
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.