The New Michael Jackson Movie Is Stirring Major Controversy. Here's Why.

6 min read

For a film that has been in development for the better part of a decade, Michael was meant to arrive as a definitive account of one of the most complicated figures in music history: Michael Jackson.

The film, in theaters tomorrow, is directed by Antoine Fuqua, the man known for Training Day, the Los Angeles crime drama that won Denzel Washington an Academy Award, as well as The Equalizer trilogy and Emancipation with Will Smith. Plus, Michael is backed by the singer’s estate, with has all the hallmarks of a prestige music biopic: scale, access, and a story that spans one of the most famous careers of the 20th century. And it is produced by Graham King, whose biopic of Freddie Mercury and Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody, went on to make more than $900 million at the box office and win four Oscars.

But Michael's vast ambition comes with an obvious complication. Michael Jackson was not just one of the most successful entertainers of all time—the child star turned global pop phenomenon, whose albums Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad helped redefine what was possible in modern music—but also a figure whose later life was overshadowed by allegations of child sexual abuse. Jackson reached an out-of-court settlement with one accuser in 1994 and was acquitted in a criminal trial in 2005, while continuing to deny all wrongdoing.

Those allegations, and the broader debate around his legacy, are still ongoing. As such, any biopic was likely to arrive in cinemas under a cloud. In the weeks leading up to Michael's release, reports of extensive reshoots, legal complications, and behind-the-scenes tension began to surface.

Now, with the first wave of reviews in, the controversy is only starting to heat up. Here’s why.

Jermaine and Jaafar Jackson attending the premiere of Michael in Los Angeles on Monday.

Why Are People Calling it a Whitewash?

The most consistent criticism, across multiple outlets, is that the film avoids the most contentious parts of Michael Jackson’s life.

In Esquire's review of Michael, Alan Light wrote, "Any good movie, though, does require a sense of honesty, and while Michael Jackson was certainly a victim who channeled his pain into glorious work, ignoring the tougher, destructive results of that pain is ultimately deceitful."

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast described it as “a puff piece that sands every sharp edge,” arguing that it presents “the palatable half of this sordid tale.” Elsewhere, critics have made similar points. According to The Film Verdict, the finished film has been “flattened into nothingness by a team of lawyers and publicists,” with the most controversial aspects of Jackson’s life largely absent.

The result, as multiple reviewers note, is a film that focuses on Jackson’s rise—the incredible music, the performances, the family tensions—while leaving out the controversies that made Jackson such a complex and divisive figure. For a biopic, that's obviously a major a problem.

What Happened with These Reshoots?

Part of the explanation may lie in how much the film changed late in production.

Multiple reports, including trade coverage and industry sites, suggest that Michael underwent significant reshoots, with figures of around $10 to $15 million widely cited. Those reshoots were not minor tweaks. They involved restructuring the narrative and, crucially, removing entire sections of the story.

As Variety put it, the production effectively overhauled the film in post-production, stripping out material that had originally been part of its core framing. By which it means: the abuse allegations. Allegedly, Michael began police-car lights surrounding Jackson as he faced an accusation of child molestation in 1993. "But the sequence with investigators who arrive at Neverland Ranch to search for evidence is one of many that were left on the cutting room floor," Variety reported.

The release date was pushed back in the process, and what arrives now is, by most accounts, a materially different film from the one first conceived.

Why Was Material Removed From the Story?

The reason appears to be legal as much as creative. Early versions of the script reportedly included the allegations that shadowed Jackson’s later life, using them as a framing device for the narrative. The third act, per Variety, "was supposed to explore the impact of the allegations on Jackson’s life, with much of its third act devoted to the scandal." However, as detailed in coverage of the production, legal agreements connected to past settlements meant that certain individuals and events could not be depicted.

That forced a rethink. Instead of a story that moved between Jackson’s rise and the scrutiny of his later years, the film now follows a more linear path, ending before those controversies come into play. It is a structural change that explains much of the criticism—not because the filmmakers chose to ignore those elements entirely, but because they were, to a large extent, unable to include them.

The cast of Michael in Los Angeles.

Why Has the Jackson Family Been Divided?

The film’s reception has not been helped by a visible split within Jackson’s own family. While the estate has been closely involved in the production, other family members have publicly distanced themselves. Paris Jackson, his daughter, said she had “zero percent involvement” and criticized early drafts of the script.

Reports around private screenings have suggested further tension, with some relatives said to be unhappy with how the story is told. Notably, key figures are absent from the film altogether, adding to the sense that this is a partial version of events.

For a project positioned as a definitive biopic, that lack of internal consensus matters.

Why are Critics Reacting So Negatively?

When the reviews landed, they largely reinforced the concerns that had been building around the film. There is some praise. Jaafar Jackson, Jackson’s nephew who plays him on screen, has been widely commended for capturing his voice and physicality. But beyond that, the response has been muted at best.

For Esquire, Light wrote, "The thin backstory, though, is mostly just scaffolding for the iconic set pieces we’re all waiting for: the Jackson 5 singing 'I’ll Be There,' Michael recording the transcendent 'Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,' the 'Beat It' video, the Motown 25 performance of 'Billie Jean' that introduced the moonwalk and altered galaxies. And obviously that’s the focus; these moments were masterworks that changed the culture."

"In Michael, some of these reenactments soar and some feel flat," Light concludes.

Plus, IndieWire described the film as "surprisingly dull." The BBC called it “a bland and barely competent daytime TV movie,” while others have argued that the music itself does much of the heavy lifting.

Taken together, the reviews point to a film that looks the part but struggles to say anything new (read: difficult) about its subject.

Critics have slammed Michael, but most have noted Colman Domingo’s quality turn as Joe Jackson.

Wasn't This Meant to be Something Bigger?

That question hangs over the entire project. With a reported budget of up to $200 million and years of development behind it, Michael was conceived as a major cinematic event. There has even been discussion of splitting the story into multiple films, reflecting the sheer scale of Jackson’s life and career. Per Variety: "The studios suggest roughly 30 percent of the material that was jettisoned from Michael could be reconstituted for potential sequels."

Seemingly, the original intention to present a full, unvarnished portrait of Jackson. The Hollywood Reporter recently divulged, "From the beginning, Fuqua set out to make a more dramatic film, tackling the accusations of child molestation that tarnished Jackson’s legacy head-on." An insider told the outlet, “This is not the movie [Fuqua] set out to make.” What has emerged instead is something more contained—a film focused on the early years only. The potential, then, is a future installment (or installments), focused on the more problematic aspects of his life.

So, What Happens Next?

Despite the controversy, the film is likely to find a huge audience. Jackson’s music, and his cultural footprint, remain enormous, and industry analysts suggest Michael could perform at a scale comparable to, or even surpassing, Bohemian Rhapsody. Notably, The Hollywood Reporter cites tracking numbers that indicate Michael will enjoy a $65 to $70 million debut.

But how will fans and critics of Jackson react when they see the film? Once again, Michael debuts in theaters nationwide tomorrow, April 24. So we don’t have long to find out.