Name: Michael
Genre: Music, Drama
Duration: 2 h 10 min
Rating: 6.3
Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Juliano Krue Vald, Miles Teller

12 AM To 8 AM

Early Morning

8 AM To 12 PM

Morning

12 PM To 4 PM

Afternoon

4 PM To 7 PM

Evening

7 PM To 12 AM

Night

An in-depth portrayal of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, capturing the complexity of the man behind the legend. The biopic showcases his most iconic performances while offering a more profound look into his artistic journey and personal life.

Michael

Bollywood Hungama

India Today

Firstpost

John Logan's story is fascinating and touches upon important events in Michael Jackson's life. His screenplay is engaging. However, the film doesn't delve deeply into Michael's life and only scratches the surface. The dialogues are sharp.

Antoine Fuqua's direction is light-hearted and mainstream. He keeps the focus mainly on the music aspect. Hence, expect Michael Jackson's hit numbers to be played at regular intervals while also ensuring the narrative goes forward. What will stun the viewers is how the makers have flawlessly recreated the real-life concerts of Michael. Also watch out for the recreation of Michael Jackson's iconic number, 'Thriller'. The detailing, the correct use of sets, props and lights etc. are truly a masterstroke. Viewers are sure to search for Michael Jackson’s concert videos and 'Thriller' after exiting the theatre and marvel at the similarities. As for the personal life of the legend, the equation he shared with his father is memorable. A few scenes that are worthy are Joseph getting a fax and confronting Michael about it, Joseph allowing Michael to cut his solo album, Katherine (Nia Long) telling Joseph to let Michael live life on his own terms etc. The scene that would get the maximum applause is when CBS Records president Walter Yetnikoff (Mike Myers) threatens MTV.
On the flipside, the film doesn’t provide a full overview of Michael’s personal life or his bond with his family. His brothers seem more like extras. Viewers don’t get to learn what they did when they were not performing with Michael or whether they were jealous of, or comfortable with, his massive success. The only major hiccup shown in Michael’s life is his father’s over-controlling behaviour. Secondly, his musical journey appears too smooth. It is presented in a way that makes it seem as though he rose in his career very easily. Also, the manner in which Michael is shown drawing inspiration for his music videos and songs comes across as superficial.

Michael Movie Review Performances:

Jaafar Jackson makes a smashing debut. The way he has perfectly aced the mannerisms, body language and dance of Michael Jackson is seen to be believed. He also shines in the emotional and poignant scenes. Colman Domingo leaves a tremendous mark and provides the much-needed jolt of intensity to the drama. Nia Long lends able support and makes her presence felt in key scenes. Miles Teller (John Branca) delivers a confident performance. KeiLyn Durrel Jones (Bill Bray) is too good as Michael's bodyguard. Kendrick Sampson (Quincy Jones) does fine, but his role gets a raw deal. Larenz Tate (Berry Gordy) is memorable, especially in the scene where Michael gives him a hug. Mike Myers and Deon Cole (Don King) do well in cameos. The actors playing brothers deliver decent performances.

Michael movie music and other technical aspects:

The music is the strongest part of the enterprise, and the use of Michael Jackson's iconic songs adds an authentic touch to the proceedings. Dion Beebe's cinematography is appropriate and quite realistic in the concert scenes. Barbara Ling's production design and Marci Rodgers' costumes go a long way in recreating the bygone era. Conrad Buff IV, Tom Cross, John Ottman and Harry Yoon's editing is functional.

Michael Movie Review Conclusion:

On the whole, MICHAEL works as a glossy, engaging and emotionally effective musical biopic, elevated by Jaafar Jackson’s remarkable performance, the recreation of iconic moments and the timeless music. Though it only scratches the surface of Michael Jackson’s complex life, it still succeeds in delivering an entertaining big-screen experience. At the Indian box office, the film has generated strong advance sales and hence has the potential to spring a surprise.

There’s a moment early in Michael-- the biopic based on pop legend Michael Jackson (played by Jaafar Jackson) aka MJ--when a young MJ looks less like a child and more like a vessel who is absorbing pressure, expectation, and eventually, adulation. It sets the tone for what unfolds over the next two hours, a carefully curated memory of a man who changed pop culture forever.
Walking into the film, it’s hard to ignore the uneven lens through which Michael Jackson has long been viewed. For some, his genius never quite eclipsed the discomfort around his scale as a Black global icon. But before anything else, the film makes one thing clear: Jackson remains one of the most defining pop artists of the 20th century.

Long before the internet reshaped celebrity, he was already operating on a scale few could comprehend, setting benchmarks in record sales, stadium tours, and global fandom. The numbers still hold. From his song Thriller’s enduring dominance to the unprecedented reach of his concerts, Jackson wasn’t just part of the music industry; he was driving it. Even with a career later shadowed by controversy and serious allegations, that legacy hasn’t shifted. Michael recognises this and leans into his musical impact without hesitation.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua, Michael is as much about remembering as it is about selective forgetting. It traces Jackson’s journey from his childhood in Gary, Indiana, to the dizzying heights of the Bad tour in 1988. By ending there, the film deliberately avoids the darker chapters with no mention of the allegations, no deep dive into his changing appearance, and only a fleeting hint toward his dependence on pain medication.
One such moment briefly acknowledges the aftermath of the 1984 Pepsi commercial accident, an incident widely considered a turning point in Jackson’s life. The film shows him complaining about feeling numb and drowsy from medication, but it stops short of exploring it. It’s a choice that feels less like oversight and more like postponement, especially with a sequel all but confirmed in the closing moments.

At its emotional core, the film anchors itself in a singular conflict: Michael’s quest for freedom from his father, Joseph Jackson. Played with chilling precision by Colman Domingo, Joseph is the film’s undisputed antagonist. Gruelling rehearsals, verbal humiliation, and physical abuse define his parenting style, reducing childhood to a transactional phase in the making of a star.

This dynamic becomes the driving force behind one of the film’s most symbolic arcs, the creation of Neverland. Not merely a whimsical estate, but a psychological refuge, an attempt to reclaim a stolen childhood. It’s here that Michael finds his most poignant note, the tragedy of a man who had everything, except a childhood.
The early portions, featuring the rise of The Jackson 5, are among the film’s strongest. Young Michael, played with remarkable warmth by Juliano Krue Valdi, captures the innocence that the adult version spends the rest of the film trying to recover. When the narrative transitions to Jaafar, son of Jermaine Jackson and MJ’s nephew, in the lead role, the transformation is uncanny. It’s not emulation alone; it’s muscle memory, lineage, and lived proximity coming together.

Jaafar’s performance is, without exaggeration, the film’s biggest triumph. Whether it’s the tilt of the head, the hesitant smile, or the explosive precision of his dance moves, he doesn’t just play Michael, he channels him. In recreated performances of Billie Jean, Beat It, and Human Nature, the line between actor and icon blurs almost completely. Give him an Oscar already.
The film also touches upon the key figures who shaped Jackson’s career. Berry Gordy and Quincy Jones appear as guiding forces, surrogate father figures who recognise and nurture his genius. Yet, these relationships remain largely functional, never fully explored beyond their contribution to his success.
And that’s perhaps where Michael feels like it is withholding exploration beyond the surface. It isn’t interested in complexity. The narrative consistently frames Michael as the misunderstood prodigy, the eternal victim of circumstance.

Fuqua, known for his stylistic flair, opts for a surprisingly subdued approach. The camera rarely intrudes, the editing stays invisible, and the storytelling remains linear. It’s a conscious decision to let the music and performance take centre stage. And to be fair, when the music hits, the film soars.

There’s undeniable exhilaration in watching the recreation of Thriller. Jackson’s insistence on full-body choreography, his understanding of the camera, and his ability to transform a song into a cinematic event are all captured with reverence. These moments remind you why he wasn’t just a pop star, but a cultural phenomenon who redefined the possibilities of music videos.

The film also subtly acknowledges his impact beyond music. Breaking racial barriers on MTV, globalising pop culture, and turning performance into spectacle are achievements that don’t need heavy exposition. They’re embedded in the narrative, visible in the crowds, the hysteria, the scale.
For now, what we have is a film that chooses celebration over confrontation. It’s not objective, nor does it try to be. It’s a family-endorsed, estate-backed narrative that leans into nostalgia and spectacle.

And yet, it works, mostly! Because when the lights dim and the music takes over, it’s hard not to be swept up. The film reminds you of the sheer force of Michael Jackson’s artistry, his voice, his movement, his ability to command a stage and unite millions, if only for a moment.

In the end, Michael is less a biography and more a time capsule. It captures the rise, the brilliance, and the mythology, while leaving the contradictions for another day.
The question is not whether the film tells the whole story. It doesn’t. The real question is whether the next one will.



Jaafar Jackson’s Michael shows Jackson’s journey from his early days as the lead of The Jackson 5 to his solo superstardom. It focuses on his musical achievements and creative process behind iconic hits like ‘Thriller’ and ‘Beat It’ and how he managed to wriggle out of his father’s clutches of controlling him and using him for his personal financial benefits. Jaafar’s performance and how minutely he has mastered Michael Jackson’s dance moves, mannerism and his smile is absolutely perfect.
_Michael_ will entertain you sporadically. But I wanted to see more of the King of Pop’s personal life after he became famous. He had his struggles even when he was famous and we too are aware of that, then why hide it? The filmmaker of the biopic should have understood that it is not a documentary. In some places, it did feel that we are just talking about his success and his hard childhood where his father treated him as a slave and not just him, but his other brothers too were treated more like ‘bonded labourers’. But his life was much more than this and hugely complicated and controversial and sadly I don’t get to see any of that. Why dodn’t the film  explore the impact of child abuse allegations on Jackson’s life?
Growing up on a diet of Michael Jackson’s music, we are all aware of his albums. We all recognize him as the ‘King of Pop Music,’ and as someone who has closely followed his controversies, I was anticipating a glimpse into the other side of his character, which was clearly absent. We need to understand that being flawed is absolutely perfect, and not showing his flaws even in a subtle way is called ‘immature filmmaking.’ Michael Jackson is a legend, but Antoine Fuqua’s film glorifies him and proves that it’s an attempt to clean up the murk.
I understand the Michael Jackson biopic, _Michael_, is produced by many of his relatives and close associates, but portraying a person as completely white with absolutely no vulnerability and hiding all of it is a kind of a blatant lie. Glorifying a person or a legend is fine, but here we are not watching some kind of an advertisement on Michael Jackson’s music. After a certain point, the movie does get monotonous and dry.
Michael Jackson’s sexual orientation was subject to decades of speculation. There were also rumours of him being heterosexual, but he wasn’t, and he had vehemently denied it. I am sure there have been instances where these rumours affected him psychologically, but then why are those angles in the film not shown? That would have made it a lot more interesting to watch. There is absolutely nothing in the movie that we didn’t know about. For me, Michael appeared to be more of a ‘musical drama’ and ’less of a biopic’.
Not denying that Michael will definitely transport you to your childhood days and it is more about nostalgia, but the film on the whole lacks depth. It is entertaining, and I am sure it is okay to glorify a legend, but that doesn’t mean that we just go all gaga about it. I feel when you don’t show the controversies and vulnerabilities of a legend’s life, the narrative gets shallow to some extent.
The complexities of his character were totally avoided. The movie may be great for today’s kids and a kind of inspiration too, but definitely not for a person who has taken great interest in Michael Jackson’s life and not just his music!

Michael (2026) Final Trailer - Jaafar Jackson

Michael (2026) Official Teaser - Jaafar Jackson