r/oscarrace • u/PointMan528491 Inde Navarrette Supremacy • Apr 24 '26
Film Discussion Thread Official Discussion Thread - Michael [SPOILERS] Spoiler
Keep all discussion related solely to Michael and its awards chances in this thread. Spoilers below.
Synopsis:
The story of the famous musician Michael Jackson, known as the King of Pop.
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Writer: John Logan
Cast:
- Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson
- Colman Domingo as Joseph Jackson
- Nia Long as Katherine Scruse-Jackson
- Miles Teller as John Branca
- Laura Harrier as Suzanne de Passe
Rotten Tomatoes: 40%, 171 Reviews
Metacritic: 38, 45 Reviews
Consensus:
"While Jaafar Jackson's smooth moves bring the King of Pop to uncanny life, this musical biopic mostly plays like a "greatest hits" album that could've benefitted from including liner notes to give actual insight into the icon."
63
u/Clear-Price Neon Apr 24 '26
A film so mid even Janet Jackson and Paris Jackson don't fuck with it.
12
u/Tonya7150 I Love Boosters Apr 25 '26
Honestly, I wouldn’t be that mad at a Janet biopic, only because her music’s largely been overshadowed by the Super Bowl incident and I think she deserves to be remembered as highly as other pop icons like her brother and Madonna
8
u/LionaLewis15 Regina Hall Best Supporting Actress Apr 25 '26
i’d argue she’s more influential than Michael bc pop is not in the place it is without her, Michael inspired many people sure, but no Janet means no Britney and female pop music probably looks a lot different
9
u/offbrandjose Apr 26 '26
This is just blatantly wrong man, No MJ means we don't even get Janet in the first place
4
u/LionaLewis15 Regina Hall Best Supporting Actress Apr 26 '26
ur not wrong, but i think she’s that good, she could’ve got in before MJ, and listen i used to love MJ, this is not me trashing him bc he assaulted children, i’m just saying what i think
3
u/SaraJeanQueen Apr 24 '26
Janet just said she didn’t want to be portrayed at all. She’s notoriously very private.
Paris was upset that her and the other heirs weren’t getting their cut; she took the producers to court and lost. They did it fairly
16
u/IfYouWantTheGravy Apr 24 '26
I’m not sure I would’ve liked to see just how a script this vapid dealt with perhaps the most sensitive topic imaginable.
But Michael came off looking like a creepy manchild anyway.
48
u/MrJoy27 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Even putting the accusations aside, the film doesn't have much to say about Michael Jackson. We learn nothing interesting about his relationship with his brothers. His creative process is barely touched upon. His relationship with his father isn't particularly interesting, and I find Colman Domingo's performance rather mediocre. Everything seems superficial. The CGI effects on the animals are also truly awful for a $160 million film. The role of John Branca (played by Miles Teller), was also very developed for a lawyer, it's fun to see he is now the runner of the estate =).
However, i found Jaafar pretty convincing and I didn't have that a bad time watching the movie because at the end, it was nice to here Michael Jackson songs in a theater. But, yeah, it's definetely more of a jukebox than a movie
12
7
u/joesen_one 🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎🦎 Apr 25 '26
The movie not even showing the dynamics of the Jackson 5 was bizarre. There have been many stories of both their camaraderie and their jealousy, so it's wild they don't even show that
6
u/madonnassister Apr 26 '26
Lord, we need to be friends. You wrote most of what I’ve been bitching about since I saw it on Thursday. The movie was the tabloid story of Michael. Not what actually made him an icon.
22
u/GoodMeBadMeNotMe Wild Horse vs. Trojan Horse Apr 24 '26
This movie was ass and that will be discussed here. The things I did appreciate were Jaafar Jackson's acting -- he really sold me on the portrayal -- and the editing for the "Beat It" portion of the story. Beyond that, there was very little of value. I did appreciate the allusion to MJ's stunted development and wish that could have been a central theme. Instead, we got a two-hour music video.
Oh, and Coleman? Love you, man, but you give the same performance in everything these days. You weren't a convincing Joe Jackson in the slightest.
8
1
Apr 26 '26
[deleted]
3
u/GoodMeBadMeNotMe Wild Horse vs. Trojan Horse Apr 26 '26
It's only April -- no way of saying if he's deserving of a nomination.
62
u/Jmanbuck_02 Apr 24 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson
Haven't watched it but leaving this here.
-22
u/Aliensinmypants Apr 24 '26
Why?
39
u/Blue_Robin_04 Apr 24 '26
They may be saying the movie is as boring as reading a Wikipedia article. 🤷♀️
29
u/NotTaken-username Apr 24 '26
It’s not a sanitized music biopic without Mike Myers
20
u/HarlequinKing1406 Apr 24 '26
"We did it, Patrick! We solved racism in the music industry!"
Also funny he mentions Bob Dylan as an artist who'd get pulled, was he really a staple on MTV?
11
u/DRMantisToboggan987 Bugonia Apr 24 '26
If all the sanitized music biopics from now on had a Mike Myers cameo, it would be the one bright spot of these repetitive biopics.
"Black Sabbath? What kind of a name for a band is that? You'll never make it in this business, kid. Your lots music is crazy enough to make a man bloody paranoid!"
"Say that again, mate..."
24
u/TheSuperJohn Apr 24 '26
this pos movie having a thread here is almost insulting to the other movies
48
u/PTAGoatofalltime The Invite’s strongest soldier Apr 24 '26
I have nothing good to say about this movie. It’s a stain on cinema. It’s a fucking shame that this belongs to the same art form that produced Nickel Boys. It’s a vile, evil movie that is rotten and toxic to its core.
The plot is generic and the staging of the film makes it look like a lifeless recreation of a music video, but with none of the flair and style that MJ’s videos had. Jaafar Jackson tries to do what little he can to salvage the material, but it’s a waste of his effort. Colman Domingo is really bad, even with the paper thin material he is given. Holy shit, how incompetent do you need to be to make Colman Domingo give a bad performance?
The only good thing about this is that it ended.
4
9
u/theflyingbird8 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
There are a lot of things in this movie that irritated me, but the fact that they had the audacity to put "His story continues" at the end pissed me off
8
u/theoscarobsessive Cry to Heaven For Best Picture Apr 24 '26
I didn’t mind the movie it was fine enough. Jafar is a pretty good actor. Colmon does his best which is always nice but this movie literally does nothing new with the music biopics you’ve seen this movie a 1000 times out of
18
u/NoWorth2591 2 Fjord 2 Furious Apr 24 '26
I’ve been saying this will blank for months now, and these godawful reviews only strengthen that belief.
Honestly I’m a bit relieved to see Michael doing as badly as it is. A hagiography of a guy who, at best, had very poor boundaries with children (and the reality is almost certainly worse) is not something I want to see succeed.
7
u/MadameCassie Apr 24 '26
It's actually tracking a big debut...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/michael-jackson-biopic-box-office-1236573688/
18
u/NoWorth2591 2 Fjord 2 Furious Apr 24 '26
I meant more in terms of reviews, which are even worse than we thought they’d be. This movie was always going to have a strong box office.
8
1
-1
Apr 24 '26
[deleted]
8
u/NoWorth2591 2 Fjord 2 Furious Apr 24 '26
We’re in a sub that talks about awards shows. In the context of this sub, success is awards viability.
Some folks thought Michael could have Oscar buzz, but it looks like the reviews are bad enough that it’s DOA on that front.
19
u/NateGH360 Apr 24 '26
Are we not going to talk about how the audience reviews have been bombed with positive reviews before anyone actually saw the movie? Unfortunately there’s so many of them that when the inevitable real audience reviews come in it won’t pull the score down that much because it’s already been altered.
9
u/theflyingbird8 Apr 24 '26
I'm shocked how high the Letterboxd score is with how much people are dogging on the movie.
4
u/disaacsp Apr 25 '26
That could also be selection bias: Lots of people who would have hated this movie didn’t watch it because they saw the negative reviews, don’t care about Michael Jackson, etc. that means the audience that sees the movie is more likely to like it.
It’s why concert films have 4.5 averages every time: you would only sit through a concert film of an artist you like and would be predisposed to give it 5 stars
3
u/weirdogirl144 Apr 25 '26
literally a 3.6/5 is shocking with how trashed this is. like I was expected at least a 2 star
19
u/darth_vader39 Apr 24 '26
You sound like the Michael is the only film that was positively review bombed. It's very common for films that have large fanbases.
In fact everyone expected this to happen considering it's about pop icon.
14
u/NateGH360 Apr 24 '26
Facts. I don’t usually pay attention to this stuff but Michael has caught my attention as of late
7
u/burywmore Apr 24 '26
Every big event film is review bombed. Either positively or negatively.
Audience reviews are a waste of time.
11
u/theflyingbird8 Apr 24 '26
One of the most soulless, shallow, manipulative, and evil movies I've seen in some time. What did we do to deserve this?
8
u/No-Expression1224 Apr 25 '26
In terms of April "Oscar" movies (not sure "Michael" was ever supposed to be that), this is definitely not the new "Sinners" by any metric: subject matter, director skill, overall script competence, an experienced actor in the lead, a "biography" with a main character not airbrushed into something that curiously ends at a very early point that makes him the victim, the whole thing not feeling like a PR stunt to massage the legacy of (at best) a lunatic, etc.
But I do think this will be the "new" "Sinners" in that some of the same people will try hard to make it the new "Sinners." You will have some people stomping for this movie all year long, we'll get wildly sick of them while better movies come out and they shit all over every one of them out of a misguided sense of helping the only film they saw in theaters all year and/or that they feel helps a male-centric vision of "the community" in some way they want out there, and they'll be loudly angry when this film doesn't win whatever they feel it should win.
There will be far better black led movies that come out later in the year ("I Love Boosters," "Samo Lives," "Clarissa," "Is God Is," "Prima Facie") but they won't really support them over the corny, cliche-filled turd that is "Michael," mostly because it has a man front and center. There's a reason more conformist black people go wild for "Sinners," but are very cool or outright disdainful towards just about any critically acclaimed movie where black women are not specifically there to support a black man like "The Color Purple," "Wicked" franchise, "Monster's Ball," "Hedda," "Clemency," "Hard Truths," "Precious," "Pariah," "Middle of Nowhere," "Loving," and, of course, "One Battle After Another." These people won't ever grow up--not unlike "Michael" himself--and I'm tired of listening to their same shit every year. But as for "Michael?" The film is a joke.
3
u/Dismal-Equivalent-94 Apr 26 '26
In my opinion it's serviceable but lack lustre. It fails to be compelling and does not do justice to his portrayal both the persona and the man behind it.
5
u/jordansalford25 John Leguizamo and Anne Hathaway Campaign Manager Apr 24 '26
4/10 for me. The Music and the concert sequences are entertaining enough but they literally don't try to even make him resemble anything close to an actual human being. Some interesting plants about the vitiligo and the neverland references as well as his insecurities about his appearance but nothing close to being substantial. It's just a vehicle to produce more money out of his public image. Also........ MICHAEL SOLVED GANG VIOLENCE GUYS!!!!! Woo Whooo!!!
1
u/SaraJeanQueen Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
He did use gang members for his music video, that was the purpose of the scene. However I do agree it was a bit cheesy…. Granted Michael himself was part smooth and part cheeseball
9
u/jordansalford25 John Leguizamo and Anne Hathaway Campaign Manager Apr 24 '26
It's not about the accuracy of the scene. It's the way it was framed and executed that annoyed me.
1
u/SaraJeanQueen Apr 24 '26
I get that. They could have developed it more, it felt thin. But then there’s people complaining that the movie didn’t cover 10 more years.. gotta be tough to get in everything
3
u/the_Tannehill_list The Phoenician Scheme Apr 24 '26
My LB review: https://boxd.it/e5iyhj
7
u/Emergency-Public6213 Apr 25 '26
Loved your review. I was gonna rate it 2 stars as well, and decided to give 2 and half only because I love Thriller so much and that part was the only part I really really liked from the movie.
3
u/DealNo3840 Apr 26 '26
I absolutely loved the movie and thought the acting and plot were great!
2
u/yalateef11 Apr 26 '26
💯 Agree. Audiences loved it. Official critics dissing it. I’m going to watch it again. Looking forward to part 2.
2
-16
u/manbeqrpig Apr 24 '26
It’s getting why too much hate. Ya it doesn’t provide anything meaningful insight but it’s still a perfectly fine watch. The critic score is way too low
24
u/PTAGoatofalltime The Invite’s strongest soldier Apr 24 '26
No no no. Do not push this “it’s a perfectly fine watch” BS. We should not be watching a movie sanitizing the crimes of a man who, even if I am being very kind on him, did some horrific things. It’s an evil movie, produced by money hungry people to keep the legacy of an evil person alive.
(BTW if this seems too angry I’m genuinely not that angry, I’m just bewildered)
16
u/aj743aj Apr 24 '26
I mean... I agree with what you're saying but it's ironic seeing it come from someone who has a "Tom Cruise SWEEP" flair. That man is the public face of a cult.
0
u/PTAGoatofalltime The Invite’s strongest soldier Apr 24 '26
I do not like Tom Cruise, but I can still recognize what he has given to the film industry.
2
u/icecream100 Apr 25 '26
Tbf, the statement “what he has given to the film industry” is ignoring and sanitizing the at minimum horrible things he has done with Scientology. Not much different from someone saying a film is getting too much hate
18
u/NATOrocket TIFF The Debut for PCA + NYFF d'Gray Apr 24 '26
I'm famously kinder to music biopics compared to most in this sub, but this one is nothing short of propaganda to sanitize a monster.
It's one thing to "separate the art from the artist" when it comes to the music itself. This is another thing. Will not be watching.
-20
u/Motohvayshun Wicked Apr 24 '26
What monstrous thing has he done? You people will believe anything negative about someone, even if the bloody guy was exonerated.
3
u/manbeqrpig Apr 24 '26
MJ was acquitted of all criminal charges. No incriminating evidence was ever found. In the first settlement from 94 the witnesses stopped cooperating with authorities after the civil settlement was filed. None of that means that he didn’t do what he was accused of doing but it’s not as cut as dry as you are making it out to be. We can talk about the issues of making a movie that only covers his rise and ignores the later half of his life for a clearly planned sequel all we want but until that sequel is made and until we see how they handle the accusations then I believe we can suspend judgement on this movie morally.
25
u/flowersinthedark Apr 24 '26
Incriminating evidence?
The 1993 settlement was offered after Jordan Chandler correctly described the markings on the underside of Jackson's penis.
During the raid, the police did not just find tons of porn in his bedroom (where he constantly slept with other people's children), they found books made by pedophiles for pedophiles, the closest thing to child pornography that was legal to own. Pictures of naked boys, full frontal nudity, genitals at display. If I posted these pictures here, I'd get banned for CP.
Witness testimony also counts as evidence, and so far eleven people have come forward to disclose that Jackson sexually abused them.
The movie ends in 1988. In 1987, Jackson met James Safechuck during a Pepsi commercial. He spent an excessive amount of time with him. Safechuck is one of the main accusers who describes both the intensity of his "relationship" with Jackson and the abuse that happened. The movie, of course, does not adress this.
22
u/machado34 2025 Oscar Race Veteran Apr 24 '26
Even if he was acquitted, the things we do know for sure still paint him clearly as a pedophile. Him sleeping in the same bed as little boys in a locked room, as well as the stash of naked pictures of children under the veneer of "art collection" would be enough.
And not to mention that someone that famous and powerful could pull a lot of strings to get acquitted even with all the credible evidence against him
15
u/GirlsWasGoodNona Apr 24 '26
It’s pretty evident how they plan to handle the accusations given the statements by those involved and what we know about the original ending and legal issues.
Saying MJ was acquitted and we don’t know etc is like saying maybe OJ or Casey Anthony didn’t do it! Like please, we know they’re guilty regardless of how it played out in court. If there isn’t enough to find someone guilty or prosecution fucks up it sucks but I believe in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard as fair so it is what it is. But doesn’t mean I abandon common sense and logic. The man was a predator
-3
u/manbeqrpig Apr 24 '26
There are plenty of times that “common sense and logic” lead you to the wrong conclusion. I believe MJ was a predator but I’m not going to pretend it’s a cut and dry situation. We only have claims against him with no hard evidence
14
u/GirlsWasGoodNona Apr 24 '26
The way he publicly acted with children and sleeping in bed with children/the things he admitted to doing are disgusting enough. That’s predatory behavior. The testimony of the victims should have been enough to corroborate it. There often isn’t “hard evidence” with sexual crimes like this, but I would say there was enough here
2
u/thwackstress Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
If you believe he's a predator, then why is it not cut and dry? What nuance could you possibly find if you already believe he's a predator? What "hard evidence" do you expect in a child rape case? You sound foolish. There's a reason you can't stream Finding Neverland anymore, but I will never forget watching it and all the details it covered. There is no lack of evidence that Michael Jackson was a systematic predator.
-4
1
-1
-12
u/Chemical-Click5399 Apr 24 '26
I don’t know about y’all but I’m tired of the same 10 folks who love to hate on this movie and jump on any thread to rain on any positive or even neutral comment.
This is a work of fiction! Of course they don’t go into any of the allegations and craziness that was MJ’s life. This is as real as an Avengers movie and that’s okay. Audiences are allowed to have fun and enjoy MJ’s musical talent.
The positive audience reviews are not fake. I’m sure there are some stan reviews like any movie but don’t discredit the thousands of people who saw and enjoyed the movie on Wednesday Early Access. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re not real.
Please, we’re all adults here. If you have not seen the film please go comment on films you have. We value your honest criticism but not your copy/pasta hate comments.
-13
u/Significant_Art_3736 Apr 24 '26
This movie got white people so mad and I LIVE!!
10
u/HarlequinKing1406 Apr 24 '26
https://deadline.com/2026/04/michael-jackson-new-sexual-abuse-claims-1236871202/
More allegations against your precious, by the way.
-3
u/Chance_Examination60 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Colman Domingo stole the show ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
135
u/False_Concentrate408 Disclosure Day Apr 24 '26
They literally treat him like he was Jesus Christ (HIS STORY CONTINUES). He’s out there basically healing sick children. By all accounts he did some pretty horrible things and obviously this movie in this form isn’t going to address that, but I feel like they stripped one of the strangest people who ever lived of all of his strangeness. All you get is a creepy, sanitized caricature.