There’s no denying that Michael “The King of Pop” Jackson has been an influential person in entertainment history. How does the new biopic from earlier this year, “Michael,” measure up?
This review is going to take a quick glance at the movie and offer a few opinions on it rather than do a deep dive. While the topic of Michael Jackson is one that can be met with contention and controversy, it’s not our aim to be judge, jury, and executioner on any of the alleged acts of sexual misconduct. As a matter of fact, the movie steered far and clear away from any of the unsavory portions of Jackson’s life, which left some critics dissatisfied with what’s considered a sanitized version of the story.
To say the story is “sanitized” for leaving out any of the allegations might not be fair. The movie, much like the 1992 mini series “The Jacksons: An American Dream,” ends with the 1984 Jackson 5 “Victory Tour.” The first allegations against Jackson on any misconduct came in 1992.
Jaafar Jackson as Michael
The most notable portion of the movie “Michael” was Jaafar Jackson’s portrayal of his uncle, Michael. Jaafar is the son of original Jackson 5 member Jermaine Jackson. Jaafar not only has an uncanny resemblance to his late uncle, he also expertly harnessed the persona that Jackson put out into the public.
The plot
The story of “Michael” picks up when Michael Jackson was a young boy and it was the early days of the Jackson 5. Whose story was this really though? Was it Michael Jackson’s or was it Jackson’s father’s, Joe Jackson? Perhaps the story is really about the relationship between Joe and Micahel as Michael gained success, entered into adulthood, sought independence, and then subsequently eclipsed the family’s brand.
Colman Domingo as Joe
Watching “Michael” at this age and this time might bring some bias to the table. The aforementioned 1992 mini series “The Jacksons: An American Dream” is as fresh in my memory as when it aired at the turn of the century.
Lawrence Hilton Jacobs’ Joe Jackson from the mini series seemed to be a much stronger and sinister character, where Domingo’s Joe Jackson more sneaky and less surefooted. Both actors portray Joe Jackson as the monster he was alleged to be, however Domingo’s Joe Jackson seemed almost cartoonish.
Were the mannerisms and facial contortions that Domingo brought to the table accurate portrayals of the late Joe Jackson? Or were these manifestations of the version that Domingo ultimately wanted to represent?
Throughout the film, the character of Joe Jackson, kind of sat in the perimeter the entire time and maybe that was the point of the movie. Where there was this great success with the Jackson 5 and subsequently Michael Jackson as a solo artist, it was all born out of the mind and efforts of an alleged abusive parent.
One could argue that Joe Jackson was completely exploitative of his children and their success. The other argument was that without him, there would have been no Jackson 5 or Michael Jackson the solo artist. This puts Joe Jackson in a strange anti-hero position where he’s both a protagonist and antagonist all at once.
Big shoes to fill
“The Jacksons: An American Dream” from the 90s was a fairly close look at Jackson and the Jackson 5. As far as looking at the chronology and alleged events that occurred, that series really did a great job capturing the lives of the Jackson family.
Where “Michael” surpasses the mini series is that it looks closer at the nuance of Michael’s life. The struggle and battle that came from his relationship with his father/manager.
The scandals
Can Michael Jackson be discussed without bringing up the many scandals he was involved in? Prior to the 90s, that’s probably fair. Whether or not Jackson engaged in illegal and immoral activities has never been proved in a court. However, there’s plenty of allegations of wrongdoing.
Much like peering into the life of Paul Rubens, aka Pee-Wee Herman, there are elements of these lives that are imperfect but perhaps separate from both the art and even their personas prior to alleged events that transpired. Rubens, however, unlike Jackson, was tied up in allegations where there were no victims. HIs controversies came from a place of potentially closeted homosexuality. Jackson’s alleged acts, if true, come from a place of criminal perversion.
The fact that the film ends prior to any of the less-than-savory portions of Jackson’s story was actually a point of relief. Not because I don’t think what was alleged is true nor because I believe in sanitizing the story. But because it’s a film appropriate enough to show a child about the rise of Michael Jackson without any noise of a fall from grace.
Having a 9-year-old who enjoys Michael Jackson’s music makes this complicated. It was relieving to know my kid could watch it without having to dive into topics better suited for when he’s a little older. We’ve already talked our way through SeaWold scandals as a family — the Jackson scandals, however, are a bit more weighty.
Future sequel?
A May 2026 article in “Variety” notes that we haven’t seen the end of Michael from Lionsgate. The question then will be: Will the production team delve into the darker portions of Jackson’s life in a follow-up film? If they aim to be sincere, yes. But we’ll have to see.
Overall impression
This was a fairly entertaining film if you’re looking for a small look into the rise of Michael Jackson. There’s areas where the characters are more developed than they have been in past portrayals. While Joe Jackson’s almost campy character seems like a personification of the evil and cunningness that he allegedly possessed, the verdict is not yet out on whether or not that takes away from the film. I will be looking to watch any sequels. I may even revisit “The Jacksons: An American Dream” for nostalgic purposes. “Michael” is worth a view.
