Why The 'Michael' Biopic Has Critics And Audiences So Divided
The highly anticipated Michael Jackson biopic, Michael (2026), has arrived in theaters. The biographical drama follows the life of the King of Pop, featuring Jackson’s real-life nephew, Jaafar Jackson, in the lead role. Critics and audiences consider Jackson one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century. He dazzled fans with his unique genre-bending music and the irreplicable energy he poured into iconic dances like the moonwalk and anti-gravity lean. From his larger-than-life legacy to his shocking death, it’s no mystery why Jackson is the latest artist to get the biopic treatment.
However, audiences and critics have received Michael very differently. On Rotten Tomatoes, audiences and critics tend to agree on most films, with their average scores differing by just about 15%. Additionally, it’s common for audience scores to trend lower than critics’ scores. Michael is unique in that it boasts one of the largest divides between critics and audiences, and it’s the audience that’s loving it.
What Critics And Audiences Think About ‘Michael’
On Michael’s wide release date, the critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes was tepid at 40%, while the audience score was an incredible 96%. On the audience side, Michael broke records, boasting the best audience score on Rotten Tomatoes of any musical biopic. However, critics disagreed, ranking Michael far lower than recent biopics like Elvis (2022) and A Complete Unknown (2024). Even Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere (2025), which received less fanfare, enjoyed a 60% critics’ score.
Audiences are showing up for Michael in more ways than one. In addition to the stellar audience reviews, it generated $12.5 million at the box office in previews and is eyeing a $70+ million weekend debut. In their reviews, audiences raved about Jackson’s performance, the music, and the heartfelt story. A few reviews noted they felt more like they were at a concert than at a movie, as the film did a phenomenal job of capturing the exhilaration of Jackson’s music. In fact, videos have surfaced online of moviegoers breaking out into song and dance in the theaters while watching Michael.
However, critics aren’t quite dancing in their seats over Michael. The most common critique among critics is that Michael is a cautious biopic. Reviews described the movie as “sanitized,” “carefully curated,” “uncomplicated,” and “uninteresting.” Although several reviews praised Jackson’s performance, the consensus is that the film plays it too safe, sacrificing complexity and narrative in the process.
Why Critics And Audiences Disagree On ‘Michael’
The division between critics and audiences in Michael actually isn’t that surprising, considering the film’s controversy. Critics are more correct than you may think when they describe the film as “sanitized.” Initially, the film was going to explore Jackson’s entire story. While many know Jackson for his music and dance, many others haven’t forgotten the allegations against the singer. In 1993, Jackson faced sexual abuse allegations and a lawsuit from the parents of his alleged 13-year-old victim. Although Jackson settled with the family and the investigation was closed, he faced additional accusations in 2003 and has even continued to receive posthumous allegations.
Michael initially intended to include the 1993 allegations and even filmed a sequence in which investigators arrive at Neverland Ranch to search for evidence. However, filmmakers cut the scene and removed any mention of the abuse allegations. The rework occurred after producers realized a clause in Jackson’s settlement with the victim’s family barred the depiction or mention of the victim in any film. As a result, the final cut of Michael ends in the 1980s at the height of the singer’s career.
Critics seemed to recognize that Michael is an incomplete portrait of Jackson’s life. Not only is it a bit of a rose-tinted look, but it also means that the biopic doesn’t tackle anything particularly new about its subject. Audiences, though, appreciate it as an entertaining and exhilarating portrait of Jackson’s greatest achievements and enduring music.
Should You Watch ‘Michael’?
As a Gen Zer, the earliest introduction I remember to Jackson was his televised public memorial service, which is why I can understand Michael’s appeal. My generation and the ones after never really got to experience Jackson on the scale those in the ‘80s and ‘70s did. Michael, though, really makes you understand what it was about Jackson that dazzled fans, capturing how truly magnetic he was and how tangible the energy in his music and dancing was. If you really want to experience the greatest hits of Jackson and get a taste of what it was like to watch him at a concert in his prime, you’ll love Michael.
At the same time, there is no denying that Michael isn’t a full portrait of the singer. Even for those who believe in his innocence, skipping the chapter entirely erases something that had a profound impact on the singer and his life. In the end, it’s up to each individual to decide how to approach works that may not accurately capture the entire legacy of controversial figures. Michael is entertaining as a musical biopic and celebration of a musical legend. Still, it’s certainly understandable to leave it on the table if you’re seeking a work that acknowledges its subject was more complicated than his greatest hits.
