Michael Review: A Deeply Flawed Exercise in Fan Service

Michael is not nearly as bad as many will claim. Just look at The Super Mario Galaxy Movie — snark cannon fodder spreads like wildfire. The musical numbers are upbeat and addictive. The supporting turn from Colman Domingo is outstanding. Then there is breakout star Jaafar Jackson, who is electric as the controversial music icon.

However, that is the problem with Michael, Antoine Fuqua’s exercise in fan service, which amounts to little more than a tricked-up movie of the week. There is virtually no controversy, as it sidesteps significant aspects of the legendary pop performer’s personal life and views the late Mr. Jackson through rose-colored glasses.

What is Michael about?

While that may be forgivable, as many remain divided on the allegations surrounding the King of Pop, the film never offers any real insight into the creative genius behind the music. Which, for any biographical film and any filmmaker, is practically unequivocally unforgivable.

The film follows the birth of The Jackson 5, oversimplifying the group’s rise and fast-forwarding through major stages of Mr. Jackson’s life. In typical biographical fashion, you see many astonished faces at the talent of Jackson at an early age (played by Juliano Krue Valdi). Their father, Joseph (Domingo, excellent here), has intentions of them being winners and getting them out of Gary, Indiana.

Their mother, Katherine (Nia Long), is unable to stand up to her abusive, overbearing husband, even when she wants the children to attend school. Soon, they sign record deals, and M.J. wants to pursue a solo album. The movie jumps between flashy musical numbers and domestic squabbles, depicting how classic songs were made without any real knowledge, depth, or insight.

Michael Review

Michael was written by John Logan, which makes the final result even more surprising. It is such a tepid, cowardly, and dull telling of Mr. Jackson’s life from a writer whose résumé includes Gladiator, Skyfall, Specter, and Martin Scorsese’s biographical film The Aviator, which pulls no punches in depicting the debilities of its titular figure.

Now, we are not so naïve as to think the Jackson family trust would sell the rights to Mr. Jackson’s life only for the result to be a hit piece on the man behind the legend. However, director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) has essentially made a “fan” movie, fixated on the pop star during a particular period of his life and unable to move beyond it.

The world remains deeply divided on Mr. Jackson’s personal life. However, does that mean Antoine Fuqua and John Logan had to make a film so middle-of-the-road? For instance, Fuqua has said that violence shaped his adolescence. While we do see glimpses of Joseph Jackson’s violent nature, the film begins to use him as a comic relief as the story progresses.

Is Michael worth watching?

Where is the examination of arrested development, the reclaiming of his childhood, and the intense emotional neediness, hyper-compliance, fear responses, avoidance, and dissociation that often accompany childhood abuse and trauma? This could have at least been explored with tender care, showing how it shaped him as an artist.

If you are a fan of Michael Jackson as an artist, there is no doubt this tepid film about his life will satisfy even the most ardent fans. Jaafar Jackson and Colman Domingo are phenomenal in their roles, but they can only do so much. The shallow, vain script remains stuck in a chronological, checklist style of storytelling.

If anything, you cannot argue that Jaafar Jackson is electric in the role, injecting real humanity and empathy into Antoine Fuqua’s film. Yet, you also cannot deny how deeply flawed the biopic is, too often playing like a tricked-up movie of the week that never presents its subject in a three-dimensional light.

You can watch the new film Michael only in theaters starting April 24th!

Michael Review: A Deeply Flawed Exercise in Fan Service