Michael 4K 2026

To start with the elephant in the room—this film does indeed omit all the “uncomfortable” aspects of the King of Pop’s life. Consequently, his portrayal does indeed seem a bit too “polished.” Therefore, how the film is perceived depends directly on the audience’s expectations.

Popular media outlets have already pointed out a number of “inaccuracies” in the facts presented in the film, so it’s not worth counting on the movie to reveal the iconic musician’s true motivations.

“Michael” is most likely a tribute to the singer’s artistry and the monumental heights he reached in the music industry—how he broke through the glass ceiling and transformed from a child in a family of 10 (!) children (not 6, as the film shows) into a pop music icon. The climax of this idea is the scene with MTV, which at the time played only music by white rock musicians, but never by Black R&B and soul singers. And it seems to me that this idea is the key message of the entire film—not his personal drama.

Yes, the film’s main conflict revolves around the father (who, through “good old-fashioned” spankings, pushed his children to excel in a difficult craft) and, in fact, Michael himself, who dreamed of a solo career. And although this conflict lacks any major revelations or “wow” moments—in my subjective opinion—the drama works.

The father’s perspective—especially for a post-Soviet millennial, for whom the “leather belt” method is not unfamiliar—seemed objective and understandable to me. The same goes for his son’s perspective. This isn’t a one-sided conflict—one that, I’ll repeat, isn’t brimming with revelations—but it’s nonetheless a valid one. Michael himself has said that his father’s strictness instilled a fear in him that “could make him sick.” So the drama here isn’t contrived, as it might seem at first glance.

And it may seem that way precisely because the most interesting and scandalous moments of the singer’s career have been deliberately omitted!

And I think this was done specifically to pay tribute, first and foremost, to the singer’s artistry, whose influence is undeniable!

Perhaps we’ve become too spoiled by the abundance of pop songs and all kinds of dance routines, to the point that we’ve started to forget that Michael Jackson remains the King of Pop. And that’s exactly why I think this film is a success—because it effectively shows Michael’s rise as a phenomenon in the music industry.

At first, Jaafar Jackson seemed a bit shy, and he didn’t exude the aura of a legendary musician; however, as the film progresses, he comes into his own, and his dancing—if not perfect—at least matches the fluidity of his famous uncle’s moves.

Coleman Domingo also fits the role of Joseph’s father perfectly. If you watch an interview with the real-life father of the Jackson family, you’ll immediately notice the similarities in mannerisms and, of course, in appearance (shout-out to the makeup artists).

Miles Teller’s character, however, is a letdown. And although he sort of fits into the picture—the singer’s manager is included purely for the sake of the story’s chronology, but not to contribute to the overall plot—this, in my opinion, is an oversight. After all, Miles could have done more. But, unfortunately, he wasn’t given the chance.

It’s also a huge oversight to have completely cut out Janet Jackson. After all, she’s Michael’s sister—the only one in the family who managed to aim for the top of the pop charts, at least in the same vein as her brother. Yet she’s simply not there. And that’s a major oversight.

To sum it up, I think the film is, after all, good. It sets the mood, conveys Michael’s journey to stardom, and, overall, it’s ENTERTAINING. Which is no small thing for films of this caliber. The filmmakers seem to have hinted that if the box office is successful, they’ll make a sequel. Perhaps it’s in the sequel that we’ll get answers to the more pressing questions that have the whole world so intrigued—especially after the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland". Or maybe not. We’ll have to wait and see.