• Home
  • Podcast
    • Specials
  • Interviews
  • Movie Reviews
  • TV Reviews
  • DVD Reviews
  • Columns
  • News
    • TV News
    • Film News
    • DVD News
    • Comics News
    • Online Entertainment News
    • Music News
    • Book News
    • Space News

Slice of SciFi

This is How We Geek Out: Interviews, Reviews & More

  • Writers, After Dark
  • The Babylon Podcast
  • Slice of SciFi TV
  • Charlie Jade Verse
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
“Michael” feels more like a performance showcase than life story

“Michael” feels more like a performance showcase than life story

April 24, 2026 By Louis Howley Leave a Comment

“Michael” comes off as a vanity project for his estate and the Jackson family. The movie does a great job of showcasing clearly the genius and incredible talent of the singer. Yet it lacks deep insight into Michael Jackson as a person and avoids mentioning controversies such as the lawsuits against him for child molestation.

Since this is a biopic of a living person, I am not going to give a summary of what is portrayed in this film. Anyone who wants to more about Michael Jackson’s life can easily do so through multiple sources.

The best feature of this picture is the way it showcases the talent that Michael Jackson possessed. The re-creations of his work in the studio and on stage are breathtaking. Although his portrayer, Jaafar Jackson, his nephew, supposedly had his vocals blended with Michael’s, to hear Michael’s music again is to re-live the sadness that his career was cut so sadly short.

The director Antoine Fuqua does a spectacular job portraying Michael’s iconic Motown 25th anniversary performance. Other shows in London or on the Victory Tour also have the sense of intensity of seeing Michael perform live.

My favorite scene was the filming of the Thriller video. Throughout the movie, the choreography is masterfully handled. On this set, we see Michael ask the director, John Landis, to pull back the camera so that the full body, including the feet, are shown just as in a Fred Astaire film. These little insights into Michael’s creative process do him justice.

Michael came from a family with a very dominant father, Joe Jackson (Colman Domingo). The picture does not shy away from showing the obsessive, if not egomaniacal, control his father commanded in the early days. It is difficult to see a young Michael (Juliano Valdi) get beaten with a belt. Even as an adult, it was difficult for Michael to break away from his father’s influence. He didn’t move out of his parents’ home until the age of 29.

So we get some insight into who Michael was psychologically through his family dynamics. One interesting thought is that, given Michael’s innate talent, would he have been discovered had his father not pushed him and his brothers as hard as he did?

The singer also is shown as a young child being enchanted by reading Peter Pan and The Wizard of Oz. Several times he is seen watching videos or mentioning Pinocchio, the Three Stooges, and Chaplin.

As an adult, this obsession with his childhood fantasy world continues. The net result is to reduce Michael to a man-child, incapable of evolving into real-world relationships. The approach screams more of pop psychology than true clinical insight into Michael as a person.

Review: Michael (2026)
Judah Edwards as Young Tito, Jaylen Hunter as Young Marlon, Juliano Valdi as Young MJ, Nathaniel McIntyre as Young Jackie and Jayden Harville as Young Jermaine in Michael. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate
Review: Michael (2026)
Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson and KeiLyn Durrel Jones as Bill Bray in Michael. Photo Credit: Glen Wilson/Lionsgate

In fact, throughout the picture, Michael is portrayed as an asexual being. He has no love interests except for his animal friends. For that matter, he is not shown as having any real friends outside his work associates or his family. So how did Michael end up being married two times? The net effect of de-sexualizing him is creepy.

His vitiligo is mentioned once, when he goes in for nose surgery to reduce its size. The only other time we hear of his health is when he suffers third-degree burns from the Pepsi commercial accident. The scenes of the incident and his long recovery are well-made and show how much pain Michael endured. But we don’t know how this played out in the future. Was Michael, for example, taking painkillers long after he is discharged from the hospital?

Then there are the child molestation accusations which are left out entirely. I read about the legal issues involving this filmic choice. The movie also arbitrarily jumps from the end of the Victory Tour in 1984 to one last performance in London in 1988. By ending there, the producers could save face by saying that they didn’t go into that time period.

But how is this a film about Michael without including some details of his later life? His death at the hands of an anesthesiologist surely warrants mentioning as it abruptly robbed the world of his genius. The net effect is a sanitized portrayal of an artist who deserves better treatment.

Colman Domingo does superlative work portraying Joe Jackson. His body seems to alter as he channels the patriarch. The role is somewhat courageous since portraying the “bad guy” can lead to stereotyping. But Domingo portrays Joe’s monomania with a ferocity and tenaciousness that is utterly believable.

Nia Long does not fare as well. Her role is so truncated as bystander in the early part of the film that when she does come into her own person later, it is too little too late. I liked the scenes where she finally stands up to Joe. But you have to wonder if Joe beat his kids, did he beat her? This is never discussed.

Jaafar Jackson is truly a doppelganger for Michael. As stated above, my understanding is that the vocals in the film involve some blending of his voice with Michael’s. If this is so, at the end of the film, the credits for Michael’s songs indicate that Michael Jackson is the performer. I didn’t see a credit for Jaafar.

Nonetheless, he seems to have Michael’s everyday voice down well. His choreography is top-notch. He also exudes Michael’s charisma.

I also noticed that Janet Jackson is not portrayed at all in this film. This seems odd in a supposed biopic. She had her reasons for not wanting to be portrayed, but the film seems somehow incomplete without her.

So, I would say that if you like Michael Jackson, you won’t be disappointed by the performances in this film. But if want to know more about Michael the person, you need to do deeper research than this film is willing to do. This is a sanitized version of his life.

Two and a half out of five stars


MICHAEL is the cinematic portrayal of the life and legacy of one of the most influential artists the world has ever known. The film tells the story of Michael Jackson’s life beyond the music, tracing his journey from the discovery of his extraordinary talent as the lead of the Jackson Five, to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fueled a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world. Highlighting both his life off-stage and some of the most iconic performances from his early solo career, the film gives audiences a front-row seat to Michael Jackson as never before. This is where his story begins.

Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Juliano Krue Valdi, with Miles Teller, and Colman Domingo
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Written by: John Logan

"Michael" feels more like a performance showcase than life story
2.5

Summary

I would say that if you like Michael Jackson, you won’t be disappointed by the performances in this film. But if want to know more about Michael the person, you need to do deeper research than this film is willing to do. This is a sanitized version of his life.

Sending
User Review
0 (0 votes)

Filed Under: Film Reviews

Louis Howley

About Louis Howley

Louis Howley is a long-time resident of Arizona. He is a retired public librarian who enjoys watching all types of feature films and documentaries. His favorite genre is horror. Among his favorite films are “The Night of the Hunter” (1955), “Psycho” (1960), and “La Belle et le Bete” (1946).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts

Slice

Follow Slice of SciFi

  • bluesky
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • facebook

Listen to Slice of SciFi

  • iheartradio
  • pocketcasts
  • playerfm

Subscribe to Podcast

Apple PodcastsSpotifyiHeartRadioPodchaserPodcast IndexTuneInRSS

  • Movie & TV Reviews

Recent Comments

  • Curt Myers on 4K Review: “Dogma” 25th Anniversary Special Edition brings a lost classic home again: “The best the movie has looked. It’s dialogue heavy so the Atmos track is rarely used. When it comes in…”
  • Summer Brooks on “FATE: The Winx Saga” writer Olivia Cuartero-Briggs talks adapting properties: “I requested it. I always get a little curious when TV shows or films get abandoned or canceled then continue…”
  • anh on “FATE: The Winx Saga” writer Olivia Cuartero-Briggs talks adapting properties: “Great interview! And it’s good that it clarifies some things. But this interview…. was it requested by the publisher or…”
  • Luis on Reviewing “Return to Sender”: “Benny was a f*ck-ass dog that attacked her for no reason at all. Miranda may be a killer but she…”
  • Summer Brooks on “FATE: The Winx Saga” writer Olivia Cuartero-Briggs talks adapting properties: “The promotional material I’d received wasn’t clear enough on that for me, alas. I’d always thought Winx Fate was a…”
Neil deGrasse Tyson Bill Nye

Slice of SciFi
415 Pisgah Church Rd #302
Greensboro NC 27455-2590
602-635-6976

Artwork:
Slice of SciFi galaxy spiral designed by Tim Callender

Theme Music:
Slice of SciFi music and themes
courtesy of Sci-Fried

Sister Sites:
Writers, After Dark
The Babylon Podcast
Charlie Jade Verse
Slice of SciFi TV

Slice

Copyright Slice of SciFi © 2005–2026 · WordPress · Log in