Michael: A Review

The new Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, is the kind of movie that arrives with impossible expectations. How do you capture the life of an artist who was not merely famous, but almost mythological? How do you dramatize a performer whose dance moves, voice, fashion, videos and stage presence became part of global culture? And how do you tell that story while also acknowledging that Michael Jackson remains one of the most discussed, debated and complicated entertainers in modern history?

My opinion: Michael is worth watching.

It may not answer every question. It may not satisfy every critic. It may not cover every controversial chapter with the depth some viewers want. But as a cinematic celebration of talent, ambition, family pressure, superstardom and performance, the movie has power. It reminds viewers why Michael Jackson became the King of Pop in the first place.

The film stars Jaafar Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew, as the adult Michael, with Juliano Krue Valdi portraying Michael as a child. The movie is directed by Antoine Fuqua and was released in U.S. theaters on April 24, 2026.

Michael works best when it remembers that Michael Jackson’s story was not only about fame. It was about movement. It was about rhythm. It was about a child who learned very early that talent could be both a gift and a burden.

The movie gives viewers the sweep of Jackson’s rise: the Jackson family, the pressure of childhood performance, the transformation from Motown prodigy to solo superstar, and the creative hunger that helped produce some of the most recognizable music and imagery in entertainment history.

What makes the film entertaining is its energy. The concert scenes, rehearsal moments and recreated performances carry the movie. When the music starts, the film finds its pulse. That is where Michael feels alive — not just as a biography, but as a reminder of how visual Jackson’s artistry really was.

This is why the subtitle fits: Michael is “Bad,” but in the old Michael Jackson sense — bad meaning good.

The biggest question before the movie was simple: could Jaafar Jackson really play Michael Jackson?

The answer is yes.

Jaafar does not merely imitate Michael. He studies him. He captures the posture, the softness, the sudden intensity, the delicate speaking voice, the sharpness of the dance moves and the strange mix of shyness and command that made Michael so fascinating to watch.

That is not easy. Michael Jackson was one of the most imitated performers in the world, which means a bad performance could easily look like parody. Jaafar avoids that trap. His performance feels respectful, focused and emotionally connected. He understands that Michael was not powerful because he was loud. Michael’s power often came from control — the pause before a move, the angle of a hand, the turn of the head, the way he seemed to disappear into the music.

In the best moments, Jaafar makes the audience stop comparing and simply watch.

Jaafar Jackson’s performance is the heart of the movie. He performs with precision, but he also brings vulnerability to the role. The dancing is impressive, but the quieter scenes matter just as much. He shows Michael as a young man under pressure, an artist chasing perfection, and a public figure who often seemed more comfortable onstage than in ordinary life.

His acting succeeds because he does not play Michael as a superhero. He plays him as a gifted, sensitive and driven performer trying to survive the machine around him. That gives the movie emotional weight.

The musical sequences are the movie’s strongest weapon. They give the film its electricity. Watching the recreation of Michael’s stage presence is exciting because it reminds viewers that he was not simply a singer. He was a complete performer.

The movie understands the importance of the body in Michael Jackson’s art. The glove, the hat, the jacket, the lean, the spin, the moonwalk — these were not accessories. They were part of a language. Michael spoke through movement, and the film is at its best when it lets that language take over.

There is also an emotional nostalgia running through the film. For viewers who grew up with Michael Jackson’s music, the movie will feel like a trip through cultural memory. For younger viewers, it may work as an introduction to why his name still carries so much weight.

No Michael Jackson movie can avoid controversy. Some viewers will feel the movie is too celebratory. Others will feel it is exactly the kind of tribute they wanted. The movie has already drawn criticism for what it chooses to emphasize and what it leaves outside the main frame. Some reports note that the film focuses heavily on Jackson’s earlier career and does not fully dramatize later controversies, including allegations that came after the period the movie mainly covers.

That choice will shape how people respond to the film.

As an opinion piece, my view is this: Michael is strongest as a performance-centered biopic, not as a complete historical investigation. It is not the final word on Michael Jackson. It is a movie about the making of an icon. Viewers who expect a full courtroom-level examination of every controversy may walk away frustrated. Viewers who want to see the rise, the music, the pressure and the artistry will likely find a lot to enjoy.

Yes, Michael is worth watching, especially for fans of music biopics, performance films and stories about artists who paid a personal price for greatness.

The film is not perfect, but it is compelling. It has style, emotion and a lead performance that deserves attention. Jaafar Jackson gives the movie credibility. Without him, the film might have felt like a polished tribute act. With him, it becomes something more sincere.

The movie also reminds us of something important: Michael Jackson’s artistry was not accidental. It was built through work, repetition, discipline and obsession. He did not become “Michael Jackson” simply because he had talent. He became Michael Jackson because he studied the stage like a scientist and performed like someone who believed every second mattered.

Is the Michael movie worth watching?
Yes. Michael is worth watching if you enjoy music biopics, Michael Jackson’s music, or films about performers who became larger than life. The movie is especially strong when it focuses on performance, family pressure and Michael’s creative rise.

Why is Janet Jackson not in Michael?
According to reporting around the film, Janet Jackson does not appear in the movie because she was invited to be involved but respectfully declined, and that decision was honored. La Toya Jackson also publicly addressed Janet’s absence, explaining that Janet chose not to participate.

Is Michael 2 coming out?
As of now, there has been discussion and speculation about unused material or a possible continuation, but an official Michael 2 has not been clearly confirmed as a scheduled sequel. Reports have suggested that unreleased footage could potentially be used in a follow-up, but viewers should wait for an official studio announcement before treating it as definite.

What did Michael say before he died?
Accounts connected to Dr. Conrad Murray’s testimony say Michael Jackson repeatedly asked for “milk,” which was reportedly his nickname for propofol, the anesthetic involved in his death. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, and his death was ruled a homicide caused by acute propofol intoxication.

How many wives did Michael Jackson marry?
Michael Jackson was married twice. He married Lisa Marie Presley in 1994, and the marriage ended in divorce. He later married Debbie Rowe in 1996; they had two children together, Prince and Paris, before divorcing.

Michael is not a small movie. It is glossy, emotional, musical and clearly designed to remind audiences why Michael Jackson mattered. It may be debated for what it leaves out, but it succeeds in showing the scale of his talent and the intensity of his rise.

Jaafar Jackson gives the film its soul. The music gives it its heartbeat. The performance scenes give it its magic.

So, is Michael “Bad”?

Yes.

Bad meaning good.

Very good.

Carmichael Phillip is a managing editor of Acting Magazine. In addition to editing, Mr. Phillip is a writer, coordinator and creative director.

Acting Magazine Newsletters

Never miss out on the best from Acting Magazine.

Sign me up for the newsletter!