Why You Should Not Listen To The Critics Of Michael

Michael hits theaters this Friday and early reviews have been brutal. Critics called it everything from “sanitized” to “shallow,” with much of the conversation circling not just the film itself, but the legacy of the man it covers. Before most audiences have even had a chance to see the film, the narrative feels set. But there’s something deeper happening beneath those headlines.

I have already said the film is worth the hype. This is a movie about Michael f****ing Jackson, a man whose life and music are worthy of the spectacle this movie presents. So, seeing the reviews, I was confused.

Michael is not remotely close to being a film worthy of the 36% it currently has on Rotten Tomatoes. Looking at what other critics have said (and, full disclosure, I have worked with many of them) it made me wonder: are these reviews really judging the movie on its own terms or are they grading it against decades of opinion and controversy?

I’m not going to keep you long with this. Let me give you three quick reasons why I disagree with the way this film is being reviewed.

The film is only about the beginning of M.J.’s life

A major theme in many of the early reviews is that the film serves more as an attempt to rehabilitate the image of Jackson instead of showing his misdeeds. Look, I am no apologist for the man from Gary, Indiana. If we know he did something wrong during the time the film is set, then that needs to be included.

But here is the thing. We don’t know.

It is not reasonable to expect this film to go into the darker parts of his life that did not come to light until the 90s and 2000s, especially when the time this film covers is his life as a child star through his rise to superstardom in the mid-1980s. The first allegations of child molestation came to light in the mid-90s. He then went on trial in 2005 for similar charges. He was never found guilty.

We all had questions about his behavior toward the end of his life, but to expect this movie to cover that is unfair. It is a fair expectation for the next movie to go into that, but not this one.

Critics of Michael have selective moral outrage

Then there is the selective moral outrage for this film that was not present for others. When the subject is Michael Jackson (and I am just going to call a spade a spade: a Black artist) the expectation is not just complexity. It is confession, condemnation, and closure all at once.

Look at films like Elvis, Great Balls of Fire!, and Rocketman. Each movie centers an artist with complicated histories (Are we not going to mention the fact that Elvis met and started a courtship with Priscilla when she was 14!?)  yet those movies were allowed to celebrate the music, lean into spectacle, and smooth over the messier parts without being accused of moral failure.

So why all this smoke for Michael? Why are fans not allowed to relish in the joy his music has brought them? Part two should absolutely go into the allegations, but this criticism of the film feels misplaced.

What about the filmmaking?

Look, one of the things in in all these reviews of Michael that is the most irritating is how they quickly brush past the actual filmmaking. There’s real craft here that’s getting overshadowed.

Colman Domingo delivers a performance that is absolutely Oscar-worthy. And beyond that, the choreography is electric, the production design captures the scale of Jackson’s rise, the sound design does real work in recreating the music’s impact, and the cinematography leans into spectacle without losing intimacy. And Michael’s nephew Jaafar Jackson gives a standout performance as the man in the mirror. He captures his voice, movement, and presence with striking authenticity. (He is certainly better than whatever the hell Flex was doing in the mid 2000s.)

You don’t have to love everything about a film. But acting like there’s nothing here worth praising feels more like a decision than an honest assessment.

I’m calling it now. This movie is going to be a monster hit.

 Now, part two needs to go darker on M.J.’s life. If it doesn’t, I’ll be first in line to call it out. But this film does exactly what it should: celebrate the genius of a man who gave us countless hits. What’s wrong with giving fans what they want?