‘Michael’ Is a Box Office Hit, Even if Critics Aren’t Fully on Board

The familiar formula that still works

If this all sounds familiar, it should. Michael follows the same playbook that powered films like Bohemian Rhapsody and Elvis. These movies are not trying to reinvent storytelling. They are built around recognizable beats, emotional payoffs, and, most importantly, music that already carries cultural weight.

That approach often frustrates critics, who tend to focus on structure, accuracy, and narrative depth. And in the case of Michael, many of those criticisms are valid. The film has been called uneven, sanitized, and at times structurally awkward, particularly in how it handles controversial parts of Jackson’s life.

But audiences are responding to something else entirely. The energy, the performances, and the experience of seeing a larger-than-life artist recreated on the biggest screens possible. And right now, that seems to matter more.

My take: flawed, predictable, and still a great time

I went into Michael expecting to be disappointed. I had already seen where the reviews were landing, and I was ready for the usual issues that come with this genre. Predictable structure, softened facts, uneven pacing. All of it is there. And honestly, none of it really bothered me.

Watching it in IMAX, the experience clicked in a way that is hard to explain if you have not seen it that way. Yes, the story follows the standard biopic formula almost beat for beat. A talented child shaped and controlled by a difficult father, a rise to fame, a struggle for identity, and a break toward independence. You can see every turn coming. Even some of the timeline tweaks, like introducing Bubbles earlier than in real life, feel clearly designed to serve the narrative rather than the facts.

But the performances carry it. Colman Domingo as Joe Jackson is genuinely unsettling. The tension between him and both versions of Michael feels real enough to make certain scenes uncomfortable in the best way. That dynamic grounds the film more than anything else.

The two actors playing Michael also do a lot of heavy lifting. Juliano Krue Valdi captures the raw talent and pressure of the early years, while Jaafar Jackson, despite leaning a bit too hard into the voice and mannerisms at first, eventually settles into something more layered. There is a loneliness there that feels believable, even when the script does not fully explore it.

Not everything works. Nia Long feels underused, and the rest of the Jackson 5 never quite get enough space to stand out. The cameo performances, especially from figures like Don King and Walter Yetnikoff, are distracting enough to pull you out of the movie at times.

But the core of the film lands. When the music hits, and the performances take over, it feels less like watching a biopic and more like stepping into a moment. That is what people are paying for, and the film delivers on that.

Even the ending, which some critics have called abrupt, worked for me. Ending with the Bad tour feels intentional. It closes the chapter on Michael breaking away from his father and stepping fully into his own identity, without getting pulled into the more complicated later years that the film clearly avoids.

The critics vs. audience divide, again

• Critics point to narrative issues, factual liberties, and tonal inconsistency
• Audiences are responding to performances, music, and spectacle
• The film reportedly holds an A- CinemaScore and extremely high audience scores
• Theaters are seeing strong turnout and repeat viewings
• The divide mirrors past biopics that succeeded commercially despite criticism

This split is not new. It is almost expected at this point. Music biopics, especially those tied to major estates, tend to prioritize legacy and accessibility over complexity. That often results in a version of the story that feels incomplete to critics but satisfying to fans.

Are you still on the fence?

The question is: will you see it? The projection would make it one of the biggest music biopic openings ever, something of a cultural touchstone. That kind of start almost guarantees serious sequel conversations, and while nothing is officially locked in, studio leadership has already hinted that a follow-up could explore the more controversial chapters of Jackson’s life that this film largely avoids.

Awards attention, though unlikely, may center on performances, especially Jaafar Jackson and Colman Domingo, rather than the film as a whole, which continues to divide critics. Longer term, everything comes down to staying power. If audiences keep showing up beyond opening weekend and international numbers hold, this could turn from a strong debut into a true global hit.

Michael is not a perfect film, and it does not try to be. It is a crowd-pleasing, performance-driven biopic that leans heavily on familiarity and spectacle. And right now, that is enough. The bigger question is not whether it is critically respected. It is whether audiences keep showing up. So far, they are, and in large numbers.

Whether the film holds up years from now is a different conversation. For now, it is doing exactly what it set out to do, and maybe that is the point.

For more articles like this, visit our Lifestyle News Page!