The new Michael Jackson movie skips the hard parts and ends up feeling hollow

The new Michael Jackson biopic, simply titled Michael, was always going to face tough questions. How do you tell the story of one of the most famous and controversial artists of the 20th century without confronting the serious allegations that followed him for decades? The answer, it turns out, is that you don't - at least not in this version. And by skipping over the hard parts, the film ends up feeling more like a polished highlight reel than a real portrait.

Reviews are in, and the consensus is clear: the movie avoids the elephant in the room. The 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse, the 2005 trial, and the renewed scrutiny after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland are all absent. Instead, the film focuses on Jackson's early life, his rise to fame, and his creative process - particularly the making of Thriller. But critics say that by pretending those controversies don't exist, the movie loses any claim to honesty or depth.

At Variety, one reviewer noted that the film tries to tap into Jackson's anger as a creative force - a rare emotional thread in an otherwise sanitized story. But even that feels underdeveloped. The movie hints at tension with his father, pressure from fame, and the weight of expectation, but it never digs deep. There's no real sense of internal conflict, no exploration of how Jackson's personal struggles shaped his art. The result is a performance that feels more like mimicry than embodiment.

Over at Slate, the critique is even sharper. The film, they argue, doesn't just fail to address the abuse allegations - it fails at the basic job of a biopic, which is to help us understand the person. Jackson was a complicated, contradictory figure: a global superstar who seemed deeply lonely, a musical innovator with a troubled personal life. The movie flattens all of that. It gives us the moves, the voice, the costumes - but none of the soul.

Some might say a biopic should focus on the art, not the artist. But in Jackson's case, the two can't be separated. His music was shaped by isolation, by pressure, by a childhood that was stolen. To show the art without any trace of that pain isn't celebration - it's erasure. And when the film tries to be uplifting or inspirational, it rings false, because it's built on omissions.

There's also the question of audience. By aiming for a 'family-friendly' tone, the movie may be trying to protect Jackson's legacy - or to avoid alienating fans. But that choice comes at a cost. It turns what should be a complex, challenging story into something safe and forgettable. And in doing so, it does a disservice not just to history, but to the very idea of what a biopic can be.

In the end, Michael feels like a missed opportunity. It had the access, the music, the cultural weight to be something powerful. Instead, it chooses comfort over truth. And while it may entertain fans looking for nostalgia, it leaves everyone else wondering what the point was.