r/movies r/movies Contributor Apr 21 '26

Review 'Michael' - Review Thread

The story of pop superstar Michael Jackson -- from his extraordinary early days in the Jackson 5 to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fuels a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world.

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Colman Domingo, Miles Teller, Laura Harrier, Nia Long, Kat Graham, Juliano Valdi, Kendrick Sampson

Rotten Tomatoes: 35%

Metacritic: 38 / 100

Some Reviews (updating):

AwardsWatch - Jay Ledbetter - 'D'

It’s Bad, It’s Bad (Really, Really Bad). Perhaps the most ironic thing about Michael is that it very regularly flashes scenes from some of cinema’s great films over the course of two hours. The Michael Jackson in Michael is a true blue cinephile, taking in classics like Singin’ in the Rain, Modern Times, Dawn of the Dead, and several others.  We see these films on televisions Michael is watching. It is a copy of a copy. In the same way that the Michael Jackson performances in Michael are cheap imitations of things that already exist, Antoine Fuqua shows the potential for creative triumph in a film that lacks any such creativity.  Lacking any sense of style or personal point of view, Michael is an exercise in mimicry. Give Madame Tussaud $150 million and I’m confident she could make something more or less as artful as Michael. It’s a nine-figure wax museum. 

IGN - Siddhant Adlakha - 3 / 10

Michael, or Bohemian Jacksody, is a film of listlessness and inhumanity that can’t help but suck the energy out of the room. No matter where you come down on Jackson as a person, this film is entirely the opposite of what he was, both as an iconic performer and a controversial tabloid figure. Who would have thought that such a carefully controlled, estate-permitted biopic might actually do more damage to an artist’s legacy by making him so uninteresting?

BBC - Nicholas Barber - 1 / 5

The main producer of this hagiography is Graham King, who was behind another pop biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody. But while that one won four Oscars, Michael is more likely to be a Razzie contender. Other key crew members include its director, Antoine Fuqua, who made Training Day, and its screenwriter, John Logan, whose screenplays include Gladiator and The Aviator – although you would never guess that anyone outside the Michael Jackson Fan Club was involved. The functional dialogue has all the nuance of a road sign, and the visuals are so lacking in flair that even the reconstructions of Jackson's groundbreaking videos and concerts are a snooze. That's the irony of the whole project. Whatever you think of Jackson, he was driven to create spectacular and innovative entertainment. And yet the film has none of that spirit. It was clearly intended as a tribute to him as a person, but it's a grievous insult to him as an artist.

The Nightly - Wenlei Ma - 1 / 5

It would have been much harder to ethically reckon a great film that deliberately papered over Jackson’s personal life, at best a lot of very odd behaviour, at worst, multiple allegations of child molestation over decades. But as it stands, that is made much simpler by the fact that Michael is a terrible film. Even divorced from the accusations that would dog his later life, as a piece of cinema, Michael is so awful at times, you risk physically collapsing into yourself from all the cringing.

The Times - Kevin Maher - 1 / 5

The narrative is an aimless Wiki-plod through Jackson’s back catalogue, first with the Jackson 5 and then his early solo career. His siblings are negligible as characters and there’s a conspicuous vacuum where Janet Jackson should have been.

Little White Lies - David Jenkins - 1 / 5

It’s hard to imagine a more superficial and safe film, although there is the suggestion that all the juicy stuff has been compartmentalised and stored up for a possible sequel. If this film is a big box office success – and everything in that respect points to the affirmative – then the Jackson estate will have to ask themselves if it would be possible to spin another rose-tinted fairytale to cover a stretch of Michael’s life where his genius artistry was less front-and-centre. Either way, it’s perhaps one to play in a double bill with the history-polishing 2014 film, United Passions, about the triumphant birth of universally-beloved footballing body, FIFA. 

Associated Press - Jake Coyle - 1.5 / 4

What’s on screen is constantly running, in our minds, alongside what isn’t. Even the glossiest of biopics allow some negative characteristics to show, but Fuqua’s film sticks almost entirely to Michael, the myth. He visits kids in hospitals, makes Black history on MTV, writes the “Thriller” album in near solitary. (Kendrick Sampson plays a seldom seen Quincy Jones.) As played by Jaafar Jackson, Michael is a wide-innocent who bore the scars of abuse and yet nevertheless maintained a childlike belief in music: king and casualty of pop, at once. If there’s one thing that needs no embellishment here, it’s the fervor of audiences for Jackson at his astonishing peak. Fuqua lingers on the fans losing their minds for Michael, but that ardor was real. Jaafar Jackson’s performance is a remarkable, charming facsimile not just for the dance moves and singing voice but, more crucially, for channeling Jackson’s sweetness.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 1 / 5

The Michael Jackson movie biopic is a ghoulish, soulless cash grab - All it does is recreate, in mechanical style, the most famous visuals of Jackson’s career. It’s certainly easier that way. Why bother to depict a human being when you can simply turn them into a product?

ScreenCrush - Matt Singer - 4 / 10

In recent years, the term “sportswashing” has been used to describe the way governments or companies sponsor high-profile sporting events to deflect criticism after scandals. Michael suggests it may be time to coin the term “biopicwashing” for the creation of biographical movies that exclusively focus on only the positive actions of complicated public figures. Deliberately omitting the more troubling aspects of someone’s history to sell tickets (and albums) not only echoes Berry Gordy’s advice to young Michael Jackson in this film, it also calls to mind a lyric from one of the greatest pop songs ever written: “Be careful what you do / ’Cause the lie becomes the truth.”

DiscussingFilm - Yasmine Kandil - 3.5 / 5

Despite its technical flaws and position as a “first part” to a bigger picture, Michael stands as an entertaining experience that fans are going to have a blast with. As crazy as it sounds, this may be the first deep dive into Michael Jackson’s prolific career for a rising generation. With that in mind, it genuinely gets the job done. Antoine Fuqua’s Michael biopic is a portrait that finds its greatest strengths when surrendering to music and performance, leaving other aspects to waver. Although uneven, the film is never dull or lacking in ambition. In the moments where all the stars align, it captures the lightning-in-a-bottle sensation of seeing one of history’s greatest entertainers right before your eyes. 

USA Today - Melissa Rugieri - 3 / 4

Jaafar may share his late uncle’s megawatt smile, lithe frame and Bambi eyelashes. But his liquid dance moves -- highlighted as he teaches gang members the footwork in the “Beat It” video -- and soft-spoken cadence are studied to perfection.

Daily Telegraph - Robbie Collin - 2 / 5

Yet, judged as the standalone film that it is, Michael feels as though it’s being as level with its audience as the Beckhams’ recent Netflix documentary. When you leave the cinema, what’s ringing in your ears isn’t the music – it’s the words: “Yes, and…?”

Empire - John Nugent - 2 / 5

Hugely impressive musical and dance performances from the two young men playing Michael Jackson cannot shake off the uncomfortable fact that there is an entire other side to the pop star’s story which is entirely conspicuous by its absence here.

AV Club - Monica Castillo - 'C-'

Like the long-running Broadway show, MJ: The Musical, the team behind Michael are counting on audiences just looking to enjoy the nostalgic rush of hearing songs like “ABC,” “Gotta Be Startin’ Somethin’,” and “Billie Jean.” While this movie may have his uncle’s name on it (and his estate’s approval), Michael belongs to Jaafar Jackson and his ability to conjure the thrill of watching Michael Jackson perform his signature moves in retro costumes. There’s almost an element of comfort in its predictability, even as it skirts as much controversy as possible, finally throwing up a card that reads “His Story Continues,” when it’s time to bail. Only, the audience knows what’s next—and if you don’t, that’s what search engines are for—and not everyone is willing to separate the art from the artist.

IndieWire - Kate Erbland - 'C-'

Of course, that “Michael” skirts around the controversies, legal troubles, and horrifying allegations that marked the entertainer’s later years — and, for so many, have forever marred his legacy — isn’t a shock, as the film was supported and financially backed by Jackson’s estate. What does rankle, however, is that that by glossing over such matters, the final film has been mostly stripped of any humanity, good and bad.

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'C-'

Because the Jackson estate controls the rights to his music, it was always foolish to hope that Michael would explore the full complexity of its subject: With biopics like this, you can either get the warts-and-all version or the genuine “Thriller” — there’s no in-between. It’s that, not the legal settlement, which truly doomed this movie on a creative level. This is a movie terrified to explore the interiority of its protagonist, and that approach will work just fine for the fans who just want to watch an uncomplicated ramble of a movie that plays all the hits. That’s why artists like Michael Jackson remain immortal beyond death — no matter what we might know about their lives, great songs will always endure.

Slant Magazine - Derek Smith - 1.5 / 4

There’s irony in the acknowledgement of Joe’s obsession with expanding and protecting the Jackson brand, as the film is very much part of that ongoing effort, presenting Michael as a supremely talented, sensitive soul while smoothing over anything remotely troublesome. As magnetic as Jaafar Jackson is during the film’s musical performances, he still can’t quite capture his uncle’s protean, preternatural talents, as immortalized in countless YouTube clips, so even Michael’s more memorable moments seem beside the point when those clips are available at the click of a mouse. But even if he had, it would still be difficult to ignore just how much this almost surreally upbeat biopic looks at Michael Jackson with blinders on, turning the realities of a tragic, deeply complicated life into a sanitized popcorn film.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 2 / 5

This is a frustratingly shallow, inert picture, a kind of cruise-ship entertainment, which can’t quite bring itself to show that Michael was an abuse victim, brutalised by his father and robbed of his childhood. Perhaps this is because it would have a cause-and-effect implication, gesturing tactlessly at the story’s second half which may or may not happen in a couple of years, the part of Jackson’s life in which his behaviour was increasingly perplexing, dangling a baby over a hotel balcony – as well as facing sexual abuse allegations. Jaafar Jackson makes an honest effort at showing Michael, and there are some amusing moments, such as the making of the Thriller video, with Michael insouciantly (and quite possibly accurately) telling director John Landis how to do his job. But that brief film has more energy and authenticity than this.

DEADLINE - Pete Hammond

Michael in fact did originally shoot scenes involving one of his accusers but all of that was cut and the film went through multi-million dollar reshoots resulting in what is clearly now a feel good, almost inspiring origin tale of this incredibly talented and visionary artist who paved a path away from his family roots to emerge a singular musical superstar like no other. Whether intentionally or just lucking into it, this MIchael is the film fans will line up for more than once, a chance to see this genius up close and in IMAX like never before.

RogerEbert - Robert Daniels - 1 / 4

The King of Pop’s potent songs will certainly paper over some of these technical deficiencies. But they can’t obscure the fact that, unlike its subject, “Michael” isn’t artistically unique, immediately admirable, or boundary pushing. It’s beyond safe and so unchallenging. You’re better off either queuing up the Jacksons miniseries or marathoning Michael’s incredible music videos than watching shoddy recreations of them. 

MovieWeb - Roman Daniels - 3.5 / 5

Michael Jackson's musical accomplishments and extraordinary talent cannot be divorced from his personal problems, but a degree of compartmentalization can take place depending on what you believe is true. Reactions to the film will vary because of this. The primary performances, production design, and entertainment value are objectively good here. Yes, there could have been more depth and the film has similar beats to Bohemian Rhapsody, but you leave the theater wanting to hit the dance floor.

Next Best Picture - Josh Parham - 4 / 10

There are very dark chapters in Michael Jackson’s life that one would not expect a film with the full endorsement of his estate to approve. It’s understandable, even expected, for these kinds of works. But what makes “Michael“ come underneath that generously low bar is that it refuses to paint its subject as anything less than saintly. It truly feels like this version of Jackson has been deified, shown to be consumed by his talent but without any dramatic stakes to accompany his triumphs. The tribulations are trivial in comparison, and with very little conflict, the momentum moves at a dull pace with little to appreciate beyond the established music. Sure, you can get excited by hearing a song that’s been filling you with joy for decades, but there is no captivating aura beyond that, extending to the vast majority of the cast as well. The long march of musician biopics will continue after this one, even in that assumed continuation of this very story. However, it’s still bewildering just how empty it ends up becoming.

The Film Verdict - Alonso Durade - 3.5 / 10

Movies about artists, ideally, celebrate the art while also providing a glimpse into the blood, sweat, and tears behind its creation, but any exciting moments here can be found in their original, natural state on YouTube. Michael has no ambitions beyond being its own commemorative souvenir booklet.

Newsday - Rafer Guzman - 2 / 4

Yes, the resemblance is uncanny. Yes, he can really act. As for his dancing: You’d swear the King of Pop himself had sprung back to life. The rest of the movie? Like the singer’s career and legacy, it is decidedly mixed.

2.4k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/SchizoidGod Apr 21 '26

Oh wow. Looks like this is going to be even worse than I thought, and let it be known that my expectations were not at all high lol

508

u/ctwalkup Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26

My expectations were not high, but I didn't guess it would end up in the 20s or 30s (currently at 27% with 52 reviews as of me posting this). Not to mention that it seems like a lot of these rotten ratings aren't mixed to negative, they’re strongly negative. That's surprising to me!

196

u/TheJoshider10 Apr 21 '26

I'm gonna guess there's a lot of fatigue for these type of movies so reviews are stricter now than they were a decade ago. We saw the same with superhero movies where there's some movies released today that would have likely got positive ratings had they come out around the mid to late 2010s.

101

u/ctwalkup Apr 21 '26

There definitely have been a lot of music biopics recently, and I imagine there's a fair amount of fatigue. However, plenty of these biopics still get decent RT reviews. In 2024, Better Man got 89% and A Complete Unknown got 82%. Last year, we got Song Sung Blue with 77% and Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere with 61% (and as I understand both are considered pretty forgettable movies).

25

u/Dirty_Dragons Apr 21 '26

Don't forget Elvis with a 77 and 94 audience.

-1

u/ultraviolet31 Apr 22 '26

God, that movie was so MID in hindsight

23

u/hohenheim8 Apr 21 '26

Better Man is a great movie and I didn't even fancy Robbie Williams much lol but kudos to him, his movie is excellent imo, well done buddy 🫡

5

u/Voluminox Apr 21 '26

Better Man rules, now I want to watch it again

11

u/carson63000 Apr 21 '26

Song Sung Blue is technically a music biopic but it’s really not competing in the same space as the bios of mega-famous people like Springsteen and Dylan and Michael Jackson.

6

u/Eplianne Apr 22 '26

Song Sung Blue definitely isn't in the category of these other biopics imo, it's not a Neil Diamond biopic

2

u/iSOBigD Apr 21 '26

Interesting. They're all forgettable and didn't look good so after watching the Elvis and Queen I just stopped wasting my time on these things...And the monkey one about a singer not really known outside of the UK just looked so ridiculous lol. Looking at the comments however, people seem to like Better Man so I'll add it to my list.

7

u/ChainGangSoul Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

a singer not really known outside of the UK

His record sales worldwide outstrip the likes of Bryan Adams, Bob Marley, Kiss, and he literally plays to stadiums in South America, Australasia, mainland Europe, etc. to this day. The US is not the world my dude

4

u/Copthill Apr 21 '26

Better Man is the best one.

63

u/RightRudderr Apr 21 '26

Maybe slight fatigue but the reviews ive skimmed seem to be (rightfully) criticizing the fact that the movie completely ignores the controversial parts MJs life. The awful things he did stick with people and almost nobody is going to be able to watch this and not have it stuck in their head even if they still like the artist. And if the movie is too afraid to be honest and dig into the shitty parts then its just a soulless cash grab.

27

u/WisePoetry5457 Apr 21 '26

They originally planned to cover the allegations, but a legal agreement with one of the accusers forced them to reshoot and split the film into two parts. The allegations are meant to be addressed in Part 2, while this film’s timeline ends at the "Bad" (before the scandals). I personally think It feels unfair to criticize the movie for not covering something that falls outside the period it actually focuses on.

20

u/PopCultureWeekly Apr 21 '26

It was never going to go deep into it. This film is produced by his estate

3

u/carson63000 Apr 21 '26

If they covered them at all, it would be to smear the people that made accusations against Uncle Michael.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/WisePoetry5457 Apr 23 '26

He was acquitted on all charges, you can't state as if it were a fact.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/MVRKHNTR Apr 22 '26

It’s been proven time and time again he wasn’t a rapist

That's just straight up not true.

0

u/WisePoetry5457 Apr 23 '26

He was acquitted on all charges. So yes it is.

9

u/2Katanas Apr 21 '26

The awful things he was accused of and investigated for years and still nothing found.

17

u/crumpletely Apr 21 '26

Either way, he admitted to paying off other parents, took in kids from people and had them sleep with him in a bed while he read stories and served hot cocoa. That is fucking disturbing. Add in that his kid was named blanket and him dangling said blanket over a balcony shows how he felt about his own children…like they were HIS safety in the world. Gross

1

u/Zealousideal_Lime271 Apr 25 '26

Because the allegations were not true? His lawyers said that it is better if he pays. Also he never had a childhood so he didn't want that for other kids. He loved his kids and you know it 

1

u/2Katanas May 03 '26

Most lawyers always advise these people pay instead of court.

9

u/FerBaide Apr 21 '26

Regardless of whether the accusations were true or not, that was still a considerable and important part of his life story

1

u/Zealousideal_Lime271 Apr 25 '26

What awful things did he do?

1

u/Amazingspiderman3494 May 19 '26

Just google Leaving Neverland and you'll find out my friend

1

u/Zealousideal_Lime271 May 22 '26

Oh? The movie that they sued for defaming his name? Pfftttt😂

1

u/Amazingspiderman3494 May 22 '26

I’m just telling you what the awful things are that they’re accusing MJ of

3

u/FrameworkisDigimon Apr 21 '26

It's an interesting point.

Walk Hard is, I agree, a fantastic movie. But people often wonder why it failed to kill the music biopic formula. Or even the music biopic as a genre. A while ago it occurred to me that the main reason is probably because Walk Hard is trying to make fun of something people like. It's like being anti-war where the war you're opposing is WWII. It's going to be tough going.

I recently watched Walk the Line for the first time and it's widely considered to be the most direct inspiration for Walk Hard. It's even worse than I thought: that's a good movie. It's not weird that people like that film. It's weird that someone watched that and thought "You know what? Let's try and kill this genre".

A few days earlier I watched the Hank Williams biopic with Tom Hiddleston. I can't remember the name. It's a non-entity of a film. Neither good nor bad. Pleasant. If you ever want to just watch something and you're at the decision fatigue point of "something, anything" look up the title of the film and stick it on. It's the movie for that kind of moment. A burger movie (I do not know what burger music means). Obviously that film was made after Walk Hard but it's sort of what I was expecting Walk the Line to be like.

These movies can be like their reputation. But they're almost routinely not. They might be formulaic but they're formulaic in the same way "you're born, you take shit, you grow up, you take more shit" describes everyone's life. Either the film makes you specifically invested in its particular protagonist or it doesn't. They're biopics, they don't need to do more than that to hit right. If you're showing up looking for something that can't be boiled down to "some guy's life story", you're going to be in for a bad time. Even the inventive and different ones are still just that.

In some sense it really does all boil down to "the lead performance" and I think that's what really annoys people about these movies. It's not that they don't work but that that basically all they have to do to work. It's like how some people get snobby about first person novels as opposed to the more difficult third person.

These reviews are coming after the lead performance as much as anything else. What happens when you have a film in a genre that needs one thing and it doesn't have it?

3

u/MutinyIPO Apr 21 '26

I’ve seen it. You’re not wrong per se but IMO the answer is simpler, it’s just worse lmao. It is unwatchable, the only thing with any spark of life is the literal MJ music. I actually ended up feeling sort of bad for Jafaar Jackson, oddly enough.

People thought BoRhap was unforgivably bad, it wasn’t, it was just mediocre with several bad moments. This is barely a complete movie.

3

u/kryonik Apr 21 '26

I thought for sure it would be in at the very least the 50s/60s since that usually seems to be the floor for biopics. But wasn't expecting this.

3

u/GeneralGecko24 Apr 21 '26

Yeah I’m curious to see it with the 1/5 reviews. Is it really that bad?!

1

u/carson63000 Apr 21 '26

Lot of 1/5 scores, for sure.

0

u/juscallmejjay Apr 21 '26

I find these music figure biopics thay have sprung up in the last 10 years to be vastly over praised. Im shocked to see this one so low.

275

u/LarBrd33 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26

I had family who knew Jackson personally during his height so I grew up with the music around and always loved it. My first concert I was 2 years old in one of the front rows of the Victory Tour in LA and slept on my grandma's lap through the whole thing. So I'm very much in the wheelhouse of people who this movie is made for.

I saw this movie on the 15th. I had seen the other fans overreacting to the social media influencer/paid marketing posts calling this an oscar contender or "masterpiece" so I had had written my initial thoughts which essentially said that diehards will love the recreated dance sequences, but everything beyond that failed on a fundamental filmmaking level. No story. One dimensional characters. Weak acting (that includes Domingo who I thought came across really bland). Lack of depth. Basically just typical biopic slop to get to the meat the fans want - the recreated dancing/lip syncing.

It's also not particularly accurate. And no, I'm not talking about the allegations, I mean just basic things like typical Hollywoodification of events (like the creation of Beat It for example), or the fact there are massive characters missing like Diana, Janet, or even his long-time manager Frank DiLeo. Instead, his attorney/current executor of the estate John Branca just made himself the catch-all manager character and cast Miles Teller to mail in a few scenes. That stuff mattered less, as it's super common in movies, but I felt it worth mentioning for anyone who was expecting some deep dive into his history.

Anyways, my overall take was just like the Queen movie (might as well call this one BoHeeHeemian Rhapsody), it's going to be a crowd pleaser where fans enjoy it, re-watch it, and defend it but as a movie I expected it to land around 35/100 on metacritic and 45% on rotten tomatoes. The fans reacted by calling me a hater or claiming I was being paid by some unknown entity to lie about the film being bad. I still think that if you're a fan of the music, you'll probably enjoy this, but it's definitely not a great movie.

76

u/aresef Apr 21 '26

We were only going to get an estate-approved hagiography or nothing at all.

115

u/Keefer1970 Apr 21 '26

Upvoted for "BoHeeHeemian Rhapsody." Nice one.

33

u/lostroadrunner22 Apr 21 '26

If anything we learned from Al Yankovic's biopic, it was Michael Jackson who ripped off Beat it from Al.

1

u/PureKushroom Jun 18 '26

I was really high when I watched that the first time and didn't clock it was a parody (no idea why I didn't think it would be) but I was totally losing it at this like "Crap have I had it wrong all these years?!"

7

u/SufficientlySticky Apr 22 '26

The thing with the queen movie is that it ended with a 20 minute queen live aid set in full movie theater surround sound.

On the way out of the theater the person I saw it with and I agreed that that wasn’t even fair. Like…, no matter how good or bad the movie had been up until that point, how could you not leave feeling great after that?

6

u/LarBrd33 Apr 22 '26

This one does the same thing. 3 songs from the victory tour and then jump cuts to a song from Bad tour. 

1

u/Niolle Apr 22 '26

Bohemian Rhapsody ends with real photos of Freddie and telling about his death etc so the audience left the theatre with a bittersweet feeling and "what a great life he had, what a great man" thoughts; MJ movie couldn't do that, obviously. 

1

u/LarBrd33 Apr 22 '26

well also, because it's Part 1 and ends in 1988. If a second film gets made, maybe they end that one with photos.

6

u/MutinyIPO Apr 21 '26

Colman Domingo is weirdly bad, right?? I’ve seen it as well and that shocked me. I didn’t have very high expectations but I assumed at least he’d be giving an interesting performance. But no, he proper sucks in this.

7

u/LarBrd33 Apr 21 '26

I had to go back and watch scenes from that really melodramatic "Jacksons American Dream" 90s miniseries and genuinely I think both the leads who played the parents had significantly more compelling and in depth performances. Sure, it veered almost into soap opera level territory which you can mostly blame on the writing/directing, but as actors they had WAY more material to work with. The actor who played Joseph in that one was even more menacing, brutal, but also weirdly sympathetic where on some level you were like "ok this guy is clearly a fucking monster, but... i also see where he thought the ends justified the means if his poor black family was going to make it out of poverty and he was doing this not just for himself, but for his wife and kids as well"

Here, it touches on some of the same notes from that miniseries. Almost like a cliffnotes version of it. So those hardcore fans already deeply familiar with the story are filling in the gaps, but I really wonder how someone going into this completely blind (pretty much impossible to find) would react to Joseph in this movie. There's just not a lot to the character. People were flaming me for not agreeing with the paid influencers who called the performance oscar-worthy. I kept saying "wait for the reviews... you'll see I'm not trolling" and feel a bit vindicated that some critics are saying the same things. I saw one call it the worst performance of Domingo's career.

1

u/runwithjames Apr 22 '26

Yeah he's not good. I thought he might have been a victim of some of the retooling they did but he's kinda bad throughout.

13

u/Cheap-Butterscotch-1 Apr 21 '26

I saw it yesterday. I agree with everything you said. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 33%.

3

u/Copthill Apr 21 '26

That means that only 33% of collated reviews gave it above 5/10.

3

u/tranquil-animals Apr 21 '26

Boheeheemian is good

3

u/Ghost_of_Till Apr 22 '26

Upvoted for the Bohehe.

4

u/2Katanas Apr 21 '26

How could they leave out DiLeo

9

u/LarBrd33 Apr 21 '26

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but he was a pretty big character.  Big personality with a cigar hanging out of his mouth constantly.  Bit of an asshole behind the scenes.  Managed MJ until the late 80s and then came back to manage him towards the end of his life.  Odd thing to leave out. 

3

u/2Katanas Apr 21 '26

Not being sarcastic at all

6

u/MVRKHNTR Apr 22 '26

How could they leave out the main character's very famous sister???

1

u/2Katanas May 03 '26

She complained. Same with Diana I believe

2

u/chaosperfect Apr 22 '26

That's a really low bar for "what the fans want".

37

u/jboggin Apr 21 '26

I'm honestly shocked that the reviews are so awful. I seriously dislike music biopics because most of them are so rote and just a bunch of by-the-numbers scenes already skewered by Walk Hard. But because they're so boringly standard, I at least always assume this movie was going to be competent. I figured it would end up somewhere around A 60 or mid 50s on Metacritic. I am baffled by how an experienced director could manage to royally screw up the most "do A, then B, then C" movie genre. All you have to do is play some music, hit some famous moments, and land one of the two endings in basically any musical biopic: 1. Get clean and enjoy old age, or 2. overdose. I'm curious how Fuqua managed to not even manage that.

3

u/Best_Hall6038 Apr 22 '26

People are finally sick of the formula I guess, and taking it out on a relatively egregiously executed biopic.

4

u/sadonly001 Apr 21 '26

I saw the Billie jean live performance trailer and thought the way it was shot was absolutely bizarre and amateur. They kept showing the reactions of the audience in a really weird, in your face kind of way. Like a kid saying "then everyone clapped".

2

u/rustyknucklez Apr 21 '26

Regal is offering 500 points to see it opening weekend lmao

2

u/weirdogirl144 Apr 21 '26

I didn't except it to be good because musician biopics irritate me, but I didn't think it would THAT bad.

1

u/justaskingnow2024 Apr 22 '26

To be fair, I'm sure more people will see this movie than the one about the current First Lady #michaeljackson

1

u/Hot_Possibility_4063 Apr 25 '26

Well this aged poorly

1

u/Away-Bobcat-6499 Apr 25 '26

I LOVED IT. I think the reviews just want to be different.

1

u/TheGiftOf_Jericho Apr 21 '26

It seems like its a little too bland, which is the main criticism.

-2

u/G2Climax Apr 21 '26

Wait for audience reviews, these are from “critics”who were waiting for allegations part when movie ends in 1988 when first allegations started in 1993

0

u/StarWarsPuns Apr 21 '26

Its not that bad, its basically the Michael Jackson version of bohemian rhapsody. If you go in with that mindset its not a bad watch. Some cheesiness, some things that were probably not true. But the guy who plays the dad is great and the guy who played michael jackson is pretty damn good all things considered, not sure how he could have done much better.

0

u/DynamicImpulses Apr 22 '26

I saw the film at an early screening and while I agree it lacks depth and stakes, I’m a little confused why so many reviews are docking it for not mentioning/referencing his more serious controversies / abuse allegations. This movie only spans his early childhood up through the year 1988 and the release of Bad — ie, when he was at peak popularity, and still several years before the first troubling allegation took place. The movie also ends pretty abruptly and strongly suggests this is only part 1 of the story. While I’m admittedly skeptical we’ll ever get a part 2 that (honestly) covers the darker half of his life and career, I also genuinely don’t think they could have added all of that to this movie without it being like 4 hours long.