Tackling the life of an icon like Michael Jackson is no easy feat. With undeniable talent, groundbreaking artistic contributions, and a deeply controversial personal life, Jackson’s story could make for a gripping biopic. However, the recently released film Michael has struggled to meet this potential. According to early reviews, the movie feels constrained and, surprisingly, uneventful despite its larger-than-life subject matter. Here’s why this ambitious project falls short.

The Missing Core Drama
At the heart of Michael’s lackluster reception is its inability to provide a nuanced or compelling narrative. Much of the disappointment stems from significant last-minute changes to the script and production. Initially, the film intended to address some of Jackson’s most controversial chapters, including allegations of child molestation and the legal battles surrounding them. These events were poised to be the emotional and dramatic backbone of the movie. However, due to legal agreements with Jackson’s estate and settlements with one of his accusers, these narrative threads were entirely removed from the final script.

What could have been a searing and complex exploration of fame, artistry, and personal downfall instead became a sanitized recounting. The absence of these crucial elements leaves the movie devoid of tension and stakes, reducing one of the 20th century’s most enigmatic figures to a one-dimensional character. In short, by avoiding the darker aspects of Jackson’s life, the biopic loses its potential to resonate as a compelling drama.

Surface-Level Characterization
For any biographical film to succeed, the central portrayal must invite the audience into the subject’s inner world. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to happen in Michael. The character of Jackson is criticized for lacking depth, a shortcoming that is glaring given the complexities of Jackson himself—an individual who was both celebrated and vilified in equal measure. Instead of diving into the singer’s psyche or personal struggles, the film sticks to superficial notes that feel more aligned with promotional branding than storytelling.

This approach echoes previous projects like the Broadway show MJ or the film This Is It, which focus more on showcasing Jackson’s musical genius than exploring him as a multidimensional person. As a result, Michael leans more toward hagiography than biography, an approach that ultimately makes it feel flat and unengaging.

Performances: Thoughtful but Restricted
Casting Jackson’s real-life nephew, Jafar Jackson, as the pop star had the potential to add authenticity to the project. Jafar clearly approaches the role with care, particularly in the quieter, more reflective moments of the film. His performance demonstrates thoughtfulness, and there’s no doubt he worked hard to embody his uncle’s unique mannerisms and physicality. However, the performance is not without its limitations.

In an attempt to mimic Michael Jackson’s distinctive high-pitched speaking voice, Jafar’s delivery is reportedly constrained to an exaggerated falsetto. While this may succeed at replicating Jackson’s speech patterns, it sacrifices emotional range. The result is dialogue that often feels stilted, robbing key moments of their intended weight. What could have been an emotionally rich portrayal instead feels limited by an overemphasis on technical accuracy.

A Missed Opportunity for Artistry
Creating a biopic about someone like Michael Jackson comes with inherent challenges. Balancing Jackson’s iconic status with his deeply divisive personal history requires a delicate touch that few storytellers can master. Yet, it is in wrestling with these contradictions that the most memorable biographical films shine. Consider Rocketman, which embraced Elton John’s highs and lows through a stylized approach, or Walk the Line, which depicted Johnny Cash’s struggles with addiction alongside his meteoric rise. Michael, in contrast, seems too focused on serving as a brand extension rather than an honest exploration of its subject.

This reluctance to delve into the more uncomfortable parts of Jackson’s life risks alienating audiences who expect biographical films to provide insight and perspective. Instead of challenging viewers or sparking meaningful conversations, Michael appears to play it safe, leaving many to question its purpose beyond serving as a piece of nostalgia.

The Larger Context
Michael’s struggles highlight a broader issue in Hollywood’s handling of controversial public figures. Biopics often walk a tightrope, particularly when estates and legal teams exert influence over the narrative. The tension between truth and legacy can stifle creativity, leading filmmakers to sidestep critical moments or sanitize darker elements. This is especially true for celebrities as polarizing as Michael Jackson, where competing narratives of admiration and condemnation make objectivity nearly impossible.

For Jackson’s fans, this film may still hold value as a celebration of the performer’s music and choreography. For critics and general audiences, however, the project represents a missed opportunity to unravel one of pop culture’s most fascinating and fraught lives. Undoubtedly, filmmakers will continue to grapple with how to portray Jackson’s legacy in years to come. Perhaps those future efforts will find a better balance between truth and reverence.

Should You Watch It?
Whether Michael is worth your time depends largely on what you hope to get from the experience. If you’re looking for a meticulously accurate recreation of Jackson’s performances, you’ll likely appreciate Jafar Jackson’s effort. But if you’re hoping for a compelling drama that dives deep into the life of one of music’s most complex icons, this film may leave you underwhelmed.

Ultimately, Michael reminds us that while nostalgia can be a powerful draw, great storytelling requires more than just adoration. It requires honesty, complexity, and an unflinching willingness to tackle the contradictions that make a person extraordinary.