There's been a few preview trailers for Michael Jackson's upcoming biopic, but the first full trailer just dropped a little over an hour ago.
MICHAEL – in theaters & IMAX April 24, 2026. Starring Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Juliano Krue Valdi, with Miles Teller, and Colman Domingo.
MICHAEL is the cinematic portrayal of the life and legacy of one of the most influential artists the world has ever known. The film tells the story of Michael Jackson’s life beyond the music, tracing his journey from the discovery of his extraordinary talent as the lead of the Jackson Five, to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fueled a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world. Highlighting both his life off-stage and some of the most iconic performances from his early solo career, the film gives audiences a front-row seat to Michael Jackson as never before. This is where his story begins.
Of course it is and it's extremely thin skinned to expect people to not discuss the obvious elephant in the room regarding Michael Jackson whenever he's mentioned. Jackson fans better get used to that idea because it'll be that way forever I'm afraid.
Jackson's history is tainted by his own extremely weird behaviour and that's entirely on him. Fans will need to learn to separate the creator from his creations. It's perfectly fine to like Jackson's music (it never did anything for me personally) but getting the old knickers in a twist when the inevitable gets brought up is a billy silly at this stage.
Pretty sure you'd be getting a similar discussion if a similar film came out about Polanski or Woody Allen.
It is.
The movie is called Michael. It's about the life of Michael Jackson. It's not called "The music of Michael Jackson". If it was, then it would be ok to focus on the music. But it's not. It should include all the relevant issues relevant to his life story.
Jackson was a strange fish. If that art thing is true, then it just adds to it already. I hadn't heard that one before. People that say he was naive and easily led are being blinded. He was sleeping with kids, surrounding himself with kids. That's not acting in an innocent manner. That's sick.
I already told you that the movie was being split in 2 at least, regardless, because of the overwhelming amount of content.
You can say it over and over but this was a sanitised portrayal. That's even what his daughter said about the script. Any future portrayals will be similar. I'll ask again, you've accused negative reviews of racism. Do you think the Ebert review I linked to is racist?
Sorry. I'll reword it
Fair enough saying it doesn't hint at allegations or inappropriate behaviour with kids (regardless if nothing sexual happened, it was inappropriate and wrong)
What I meant was its turning into a discussion about that and that alone.
Well tbf, Jackson's life and cultural impact and influence is so vast that there's so much to discuss and show of him that I don't think even a trilogy would do justice to his life and story. Probably a 10 part Netflix series would have been best.
And the Jaws comparison doesn't work. They did mention Michael in the movie 😁
Yeah, I get what you're saying.
I do know a sequel is in the works. Saw pictures yesterday of his nephew as Michael in the 90s. So we'll have to see if it gets green lit. Maybe it'll show it. Maybe it won't. Who knows.
Only think I'll say is, the timeline in the movie is before any allegations became public so to not mention it, I get it purely because of that.
The Broadway show does hint at it and mentions it "Who is the boy he's bringing on tour and why is he?"
And the fact his own daughter's criticisms of the film perfectly align with that of critics? They made a one dimensional and sugar coated movie about Jackson. That makes it inevitable that these discussions are gonna dominate. In a biopic, you cannot separate the artist from the art realistically and it's gonna end up pretty empty when you try to do so.
Again, as I stated earlier, I knew what to expect and I have my own criticisms of the movie. I enjoyed it though. Far from the best movie I'll see this year, but I enjoyed it and I did like seeing younger people going, dressed in the gear and loving it. There's enough bad in the world so I take what I can get 😁
I'm smart enough after seeing Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen are my number 1 band) I knew what to expect from this genre going forward. I hated that movie where as I didnt hate this.
Walk The Line and Ray were the exceptions rather than the rule
I was calling Jackson a nonce, not you, to be clear
Probably over analysing it but there are two parts in the movie where I thought his downfall was hinted at.
His father telling him that if he breaks away from his family, he'll just surround himself with yes men who dont care (That is very true. Read before he sacked his manager because he told him hanging with kids wasnt a good look. Which is why I felt the writing was poor as it shoilr have explored his mindset and family abuse growing up more)
And when he's in the hospital on painkillers and he's clearly high and he's on about God putting him on the planet to heal people and looking at a picture of Peter Pan.
Maybe its because I lived through it and we all know the story of Michael Jackson. But I felt there was a change in the character after those two scenes in comparison to what came before it in the movie.
Or maybe it wasn't deliberate and I'm just seeing it for what it truly was in real life
Bizarre take, a film or record being commercially successful does not make the critics 'wrong'. A lot of stuff is both commercially successful and complete shîte
That's not true, they found child pornography in his safe.
"That's not true, they found child pornography in his safe."
🐂💩
SMH. So many out and out lies. And why wasn't he ever charged with this offence?
I enjoyed the movie. End of.
I am fully aware of his allegations and him being a potential monster. But I enjoy the cinema and to enjoy myself.
Not once in this thread did I say the movie was great or perfect. I literally posted my criticism. I literally posted my feelings on the guy!
All I said was its not a 1/10 movie the critics are saying.
Now the questions you have to ask yourself is, are you pissed off that I'm not happy child rape and allegations weren't involved in the movie? Or the fact I had a good time at the cinema?
Either way, read what I wrote and if you're just projecting crap on me, I dont wanna know
Not Bad, eh? 😉
‘MICHAEL’ earned $217.4 million worldwide and $97 million domestically in its first weekend, marking the biggest biopic opening of all time. It cost $200 million to produce.
Keep on, with the force, don't stop
Don't stop 'til you get enough
I genuinely find it aggrieviting that I have stated that I like his music, think he's a potential criminal, stated he was massively inappropriate with children at the very least but I enjoyed the movie. I get the notion I am supposed to feel bad about that?
Tell you what... Hop off Boards (its dying anyway) and grow a set and say it to people going to the cinema.
And I am getting "but his daughter had an issue with" She's allowed and she can be right. Just like I can be right in my opinion to say it's "meh" but entertaining and I can actually disagree with some of the critics
Don’t think anyone has an issue with you enjoying the film? Plenty of people are judging by the box office.
I do think the critical reviews are understandable though. A good biopic should give an honest account of the subject, flaws and all - and this doesn’t do it. It touches on some subjects but very lightly, the overriding theme is his immense talent. For an individual with so many well known issues, it’s going to stand out when they’re absent.
The argument that it stops in 1988 doesn’t really wash with me as it wasn’t planned to be more than one film. If a sequel does appear then maybe people can revisit this and look at it as a whole. But that’s if one happens. For right now it’s definitely a poor picture into the man himself.
"The argument that it stops in 1988 doesn’t really wash with me as it wasn’t planned to be more than one film."
Wrong! I've already said the movie ends in 1984, with actual dialogue. Michael said this was his last concert with his brothers. Then the very last scene is him performing in Wembley in 1988. Which is understandable as it's the next time he performed in concert and he was free from his father's control.
And wrong again, as it was decided to split the movie into 2(at least) over a year ago as it grew in scope and content. It was over 4 hours long. Not a hope was it being released at that length.
Nothing online suggests that a second part exists, or is yet to be greenlit. Your statement makes it seem like they’ve already scripted and filmed scenes for another part that goes into the 90s/00s but that doesn’t seem to be true at all.
If there is 4 hours of content filmed here, it sounds far more likely that the home version will have extended footage.
My argument, as stated many a time, its poorly written and not developing of the character, in his developing years. You would want to be blind not to see his change of persona and him as a person between Off The Wall and Thriller and he was beginning to lose the plot by the time Bad came around. No allegations needed for this part, they should have dived into his mindset and what turned him into that.
I think Biopics from BR onwards aren't up to much but I enjoyed this. Possibly because of the music and the performances of Colman and Jaafar, but it was a good evening out and it was heart warming to see teenagers and people in their 20s enjoying it and in all the gear.
As I said above, if he was alive and if he was the artistic perfectionist that Quincy Jones and various others made out, he would not have green lit this.
As a music and film lover, I enjoyed it. But it also rammed home to me, seeing so many younger people at it, his art and impact lives on.
I'm a rocker and was in my late teenage years when he was at his peak. Fan of his music but not to the point where I'll lose my **** and defend him against the indefensible. Said it back then and I'll always say it, his level of fame and stardom was off the charts and it's no wonder he lost the run of himself and got lost in his own success. Thriller destroyed him and opened the door for his behaviour
My argument towards the media critics is that it far from a 1/10. It's above BR for me. Still a 6
Tbf there is footage going into the 90s and stills and images have been released.
Also, the cast and actors have said it's in the works. So there is a lot to suggest it.
Whether it actually happens or not is another story. I dont think it will happen personally
There's no way to tell the story from the estate's POV without making him look innocent.
And as I said above in previous posts, even if nothing happened sexually, which I pray and hope didn't, its still wrong and massively inappropriate
have you actually seen the film?!
For the period it covers (to 1984) it covers all the key negative issues. What did they leave out ?
the father beating him with a belt was quite harrowing - I think they covered the relationship with his parents very well and accurately.
For the period it covers (to 1984)
Haven't seen it but I thought it runs up to 1988, when there were definitely things to address…
But being beaten by his father is not a negative for Michael Jackson, so why wouldn't they include it?
Nah it just ends on a performance in 1988. Doesnt cover anything about the Bad Album or him selling crazy stories to the press about himself. The next movie is apparently starting in 87/88. The production and writing seems all over the place.
Wouldnt say being beaten by your own father is a positive…
Jackson's father beating him isn't a negative impact on his own reputation. Child abuse on the other hand is reputational to him. This is very much so about creating a narrative where Jackson is always the victim. The fanbase are doing the same thing, negative reviews amount to racism or some evil agenda. There's a desperate need to rewrite history basically.
Sorry. I meant in the respect that it wasn't a positive thing for him in his life
I didn't say it's a positive.
But if you're trying to rehabilitate the image of a man with some very credible allegations of child rape hanging over him, there's a clear advantage in portraying him as a victim himself. Sure who could blame Michael for turning out a bit odd, look at the childhood he had, etc etc.
Painting that as the film tackling the hard questions about Jackson is not reasonable.
Deny deny deny. Are you going to tell us why it was "lies"?
Turning out odd and in serious need of therapy due to mental issues and arrested development caused by childhood trauma is a reality for a lot of people and regardless of allegations, there is sympathy and empathy there.
However, there is absolutely no reasoning for inappropriate relationships with children, regardless of whether or not anything sexual occurred. There's simply no excusing it and I never will make excuses for it and no movie ever will. Its absolutely wrong.
Want to be childlike and play with kids and help them? Absolutely, go nuts! But have a boundary and send them off home to their parents when its over.
