Guardian slams it, Variety praises it: Full breakdown of what critics really think about ‘Michael’ movie
The new biopic Michael, based on the life of Michael Jackson, has triggered a wave of sharply divided reviews across major global outlets. While some critics applaud its musical brilliance and the performance of Jafaar Jackson, others have slammed the film as “sanitised,” “shallow,” and even “ghoulish.”
Here’s a clear breakdown of what each major outlet is actually saying, and why the film is so controversial.
The Guardian: “Shallow” and “Emotionally Inert”
The Guardian delivered one of the most critical takes. Reviewer Peter Bradshaw gave the film two stars, describing it as:
- “A frustratingly shallow, inert picture”
- “Packed with music biopic clichés”
The outlet criticised the film for failing to explore Jackson’s personal trauma or complexities, arguing it feels more like surface-level entertainment than a serious biographical work.
The Independent: “Ghoulish, Soulless Cash Grab”
The Independent went even harder, awarding the film just one star.
Critic Clarisse Loughrey labelled it:
- “A ghoulish, soulless cash grab”
- A film where “cinema and merchandise blur”
The review argued that the movie reduces Jackson to a product, focusing on recreating iconic visuals instead of telling a meaningful human story.
The Telegraph: “Whitewash” With a Fatal Flaw
The Telegraph focused on what many see as the film’s biggest issue, its omissions.
The outlet called the film:
- A “whitewash”
- Criticised it for “refusing to address the elephant in the room”
According to the review, ignoring major controversies makes the film feel incomplete and lacking credibility as a biopic.
The Times: “A Watershed… For the Wrong Reasons”
The Times delivered another harsh verdict, giving the film one star.
Reviewer Kevin Maher said:
- It could become a “watershed moment for the genre, and not in a good way”
- Described it as “untethered from reality”
However, even this critical review admitted that the music sequences remain “brilliant and thrilling.”
IndieWire: “Glossy, Sanitised and Surprisingly Dull”
IndieWire echoed similar concerns about the film’s tone.
The outlet described Michael as:
- “Glossy, sanitised, and surprisingly dull”
It criticised the movie for stripping away both the good and bad aspects of Jackson’s life, leaving behind a version that lacks depth.
Empire & Financial Times: “Cynical” and “Messianic”
Empire said the film feels like a “cynical moneymaking machine”, suggesting it prioritises profit over storytelling.
Meanwhile, Financial Times gave it one star, noting it:
- “Goes big on the messianic, and much smaller on the inner life”
Both outlets criticised the film for failing to truly explore the man behind the legend.
READ ALSO
BBC & Radio Times: “Bland” and Underwhelming
BBC described the film as:
- “A bland and barely competent daytime TV movie”
Similarly, Radio Times gave it two stars, saying it:
- “Drifts from one underwritten scene to the next”
These reviews highlight concerns about weak storytelling and lack of emotional depth.
Hollywood Reporter: A More Positive Take
In contrast, Hollywood Reporter offered a more balanced and positive perspective.
It stated:
- The film “delivers for lifelong fans”
- Described it as a “warm rush of transporting pleasure”
However, it acknowledged that the film may face criticism for portraying Jackson too positively.
Variety: “Engrossing” Despite Controversy
Variety also leaned positive.
Reviewer Owen Gleiberman said:
- The film is “engrossing” and plays well
Though not dismissing its flaws, the outlet praised its performances and cinematic appeal, suggesting it works as mainstream entertainment.
Deadline: Performance “Dazzles,” But Lacks Insight
Deadline struck a middle ground.
It noted:
- Jafaar Jackson “dazzles” in the lead role
- But the film “falls short of giving new insights”
This reflects a recurring theme: strong performance, weak narrative depth.
Why Critics Are So Divided
Across outlets, one pattern is clear:
- Negative reviews (Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Times) focus on the film’s omissions and lack of depth
- Mixed reviews (Deadline, Radio Times, BBC) highlight strong performances but weak storytelling
- Positive reviews (Hollywood Reporter, Variety) emphasise music, nostalgia, and entertainment value
The biggest point of contention remains the film’s decision to exclude references to major controversies, which many critics say undermines its credibility as a biopic.
A Film Defined by Contrast
Michael is shaping up to be one of the most polarising music biopics in recent years.
- Critics largely see it as sanitised and incomplete
- Supporters view it as a celebration of musical legacy
What’s undeniable is this: the film has sparked global conversation, with each outlet offering a distinct lens on whether Michael is tribute, missed opportunity, or calculated spectacle.
FAQ
1. What are major outlets saying about the Michael movie?
Outlets like The Independent and The Guardian gave negative reviews, while Variety and The Hollywood Reporter were more positive.
2. Which outlet gave the worst review of the Michael movie?
The Independent and The Times both gave one-star reviews, calling the film shallow and poorly executed.
3. Which outlet gave the best review of the Michael movie?
Variety and The Hollywood Reporter offered the most positive takes, praising its entertainment value.
4. Why are critics calling the film a “whitewash”?
Outlets like Telegraph argue the film avoids addressing major controversies, making it feel incomplete.
5. Is Jaafar Jackson’s performance well received?
Yes. Across nearly all outlets, including Deadline, his performance is widely praised.
6. Are there any positive reviews of the Michael movie?
Yes. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter highlight its strengths in music and nostalgia.
7. What is the biggest criticism of the film?
Most outlets agree the film fails to address key controversies, which weakens its credibility as a biopic.
8. Is the Michael movie worth watching?
Fans of Michael Jackson may enjoy it, but critics suggest it lacks depth for broader audiences.