‘Michael’ fell short of being a good biopic

The Michael Jackson biopic, titled “Michael,” was a lackluster attempt at confronting all of the controversies that continuously defined Michael Jackson’s legacy.

I heavily anticipated this film. So, when tickets were available, I jumped on it immediately. But after viewing, that decision felt questionable.

I had the privilege of viewing the film via an early screening IMAX experience in a packed theater on April 22.

The film starts off in Gary, Indiana, showcasing a younger Michael, played by Juliano Valdi, and his brothers, The Jackson 5, practicing singing in front of Joe Jackson, played by Colman Domingo.

Domingo looked phenomenal in this role. The prosthetics used were an immediate stand out.

The introduction of the film showed the child abuse Michael experienced at the hands of his father. But this idea was brushed off throughout the film.

The film did not fully explore the controversies surrounding Joe and Michael. Several important topics are introduced but then cut short.

Joe’s presence defines the story more than Michael’s own voice ever does. Because of that, the film plays less like a true portrait of Michael and more like a story about surviving his father.

The film has a noticeable issue with pacing, often skipping over large stretches of time without fully grounding the audience in what has changed or why it matters.

After every crucial scene, there were time jumps, which made me wonder what was going on.

For example, the film started with a young Michael singing for Motown records. Then, the narrative shifts to him recording with Quincy Jones.

Since the film has these pacing issues, the story starts to feel less like a complete narrative and more like a sequence of selected moments.

That issue with execution carries into how the film handles Michael as a person.

The film had a weird narrative about Michael’s obsession with Peter Pan and Neverland. However, the film never showcased Michael’s own version of Neverland where he would invite children to hang out with him.

I found this weird because the film oddly tried to justify how Michael longed for childhood innocence, yet it stopped short of exploring how that desire manifested later in his life.

I think parts of this uneven storytelling stem from the film’s perspective.

With members of the Jackson family involved in its creation, the narrative at times reflects their framing of events rather than offering an objective retelling.

The musical performances are easily the film’s strongest asset.

From the staging to the costume design, each sequence feels carefully constructed to mirror the spectacle that defined Michael Jackson’s career.

Jaafar Jackson delivers an especially impressive performance in these moments, capturing not just the choreography but the smaller, more specific elements of Jackson’s stage presence.

At times, the film feels more confident recreating the performances than it does telling the story around them.

By the end, “Michael” loses focus on Michael Jackson and feels overshadowed by Joe Jackson’s influence.

The ending sequence of this film was ambiguous and fell short. The phrase “His Story Continues” appeared prominently on screen, making me wonder if a sequel is planned.

But even then, with the way this film was set up, how can his story continue when there was barely one to begin with?