What’s Bad in the Michael Film?

Lately social media scrollers probably sees video about Michael Jackson after every 2 videos. Most of critics do not like the film, on the other hand people seems to be loved the film. Development of the film started in the winter of 2019. Deadline Hollywood reported that the producer Graham King has the rights to produce a film about Michael Jackson. In January 2023, it was announced that Antoine Fuqua would be director. That month, casting director Kimberly Hardin started casting. 

The film’s storyline traces the arc of Michael’s youth: from the formation and rise of The Jackson 5 to the shadow cast by his father’s rigid discipline and Taking advantage of him. It chronicles the genesis of a solo career that redefined the industry. In other words, the film’s timeline stretches from a humble, impoverished childhood in Gary, Indiana, to the iconic 1988 solo concert in London. 

Earlier versions of the script included the accusations of child sexual abuse against Jackson. One draft opened in medias res in 1993, showing Jackson staring at his reflection as police arrived at his Neverland Ranch home. While the third act explored the impact of these allegations, they were later removed. This change occurred after a clause was found in a settlement with Jordan Chandler that prohibited any mention of him in the film. Further delays followed when the Palisades Fire damaged the screenwriter’s home.

In the film, there is a detail that might lead to a misunderstanding. In the scene where Quincy Jones is talking with Michael about making a solo album. That album turned out to be “Off the Wall,” one of the most celebrated albums in history. Some misunderstood this to be Michael Jackson’s first-ever solo album, which it’s not is not. It was his first solo album as an adult and marked his first collaboration with Quincy Jones. His first-ever solo album, Got to be There, was actually released much earlier.

There are certain strengths to the film, but there are definitely some glaring flaws. To start with the negatives: the visual effects are incredibly poor. They are so poor that if  the filmmakers had decided to use actors in cheap animal costumes instead of these effects, it would have been an improvement; at least then, we would have had a good laugh. Another major issue was the scenario. It lacks emotion. Throughout the entire film, you find yourself waiting for a great wave of emotion that never arrives. Instead, the narrative remains flat, continuing in the same repetitive manner from beginning to end.

Now, let’s continue with strengths: hearing those iconic Michael Jackson songs, especially during the concert scenes, makes you feel as though you are not merely in a cinema watching a film, but standing in the midst of the concert itself. One might even feel the urge to stand up and sing along. The dance sequences are equally impressive; it is almost as if the filmmakers utilized archival clips of Michael Jackson rather than filming new scenes.

 Another triumph is Jaafar Jackson’s performance. While it is too soon to judge the trajectory of his acting career—or whether he will portray future roles with the same skill—it can be said with certainty that no one else on this earth could have inhabited the role of Michael with such precision. It was a masterstroke of casting. His voice, his mannerisms, and his movements on the dance floor were all, quite incredibly, the mirror image of Michael himself.”

In conclusion, the film could have been much better. In biographical films of this nature, the most daunting task is portraying a historical figure in a way that truly convinces the audience—and Jaafar Jackson succeeded in this. However, the lack of other details we discussed ultimately weakened the film. Nevertheless, it remains a production you can enjoy in the cinema.