By Ben Miller
As I left my screening of Antoine Fuqua's Michael, I heard a woman exclaim, "That was exactly what I wanted!" This is the overall goal of this film. You will learn absolutely nothing about Michael Jackson the man, but you will get every hit song with loud and vibrant performances.
Frankly, Michael is critic-proof. No matter how much I go on about my multitude of problems, you just won't care. It looks like Michael Jackson on screen, using his actual music, inspired by his performances, and completely glosses over any issues that might make anyone uncomfortable. It's the most kid-gloves film I can remember seeing in some time. No chances are taken, nothing is learned... and it's going to make a lot of money.
You can make all the excuses you want, but the problems with the film are right in your face, you just don't want to admit they are there. The film doesn't want to upset any member of its audience, so it isn't about to start asking the tough questions. Why is Michael so infantalized? Why does he connect more with animals over people? Why is he so close with his mother over any other member of his family? There are morsels of intrigue that actually might tell you something about the man behind the artist, but why would you explore that when you can recreate the making of the Thriller video?
The recreation of "Thriller" with Jaafar Jackson as MJIt doesn't help when the film is very obviously made with at least a dozen music rights-holders actively involved in the production. Between lawyer John Branca, all four Jackson brothers, and sister LaToya, you can very obviously tell how careful the filmmakers had to be with all the cooks in the kitchen. None of those characters get the slightest bit of criticism, nor does longtime Jackson bodyguard Bill Bray. Outside of father Joe, no character is anything other than absolutely perfect. Janet, the second-most famous Jackson sibling who Michael was closest to for many years, is never even mentioned in passing.
When it comes to musical biopics, I ask myself the question: if you take away the music, is this story in any way worth telling? In this case, unequivocally not. The film never gives you a chance to think of anything but the music. Michael is wholly and completely defined by his talent and his musical genius, that it never occurs to anyone to give him the slightest bit of characterization apart from his music. Michael's entire life is playing games and playing music. That's not a person, and it certainly isn't explained why he is like this. The filmmakers have also gone out of their way to show how unsexual Michael was. There isn't even a hint of a romantic interest. It's an odd choice.
The entire film is a mix of the classic musical biopic of "that definitely didn't happen," and near omnipresent music from Jackson's catalog. At one point, near the film's 90-minute mark, a vital scene was occurring between Nia Long and Colman Domingo, but the silence was so deafening, I actively noticed how long the movie had gone without music. It was probably only three minutes. It's an obvious crutch the film has zero confidence in ever dispensing.
Plot-wise, it's "exactly what you want." Young Michael (played by Juliano Krue Valdi), is forced to perform by his father Joe (Domingo) with his four brothers. Joe's strict regiment of practice and perfection eventually leads the Jackson 5 out of Gary, Indiana into a record contract and stardom. The monumental success of the group eventually moves the family to a large estate in Encino, California.
An older Michael (Jaafar Jackson) longs to break free of his father's control and makes his first solo album, which is a great success. Joe's influence continues to dominate Michael, despite the pleas of Michael's mother Katherine (Long). Michael's success leads him to take charge of his career with the help of lawyer John Branca (Miles Teller), leading him to become the most successful artist in the world.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I say. If you like Michael Jackson, you'll most likely like this film. It's heavy on performances and doesn't attempt to say anything controversial. Yes, there are nods to Michael's obsession with plastic surgery, painkillers, and skin conditions, but these are only slightly alluded to at best. The things the film goes out of its way to not say are the things that stand out the clearest. I don't believe I have to elaborate for you to understand what I am saying.
I don't want to come across as rude about Jaafar Jackson, but he's the equivalent of an expert cruise ship performer; You see him on stage and marvel at the impression. He looks a lot like Michael and dances just like him. Unfortunately, he eventually has to come off stage. When he opens his mouth off-stage his acting leaves plenty to be desired. This is certainly a situation where the family had a say in the casting. He looks the part and gets the job done in the musical performances. That's what the film wanted, and that's what it got.
Domingo has the most acting to do and mostly goes big and brash as a pushy power-hungry bully. He's still Colman Domingo, so he is extremely watchable. The only reason Teller is there is because Branca is a producer. Teller has extremely little to do. Same for Long, who does absolutely nothing for 90% of the film. No one else makes much of an impact.
Michael takes no chances and delivers for the largest possible audience.. It is in no way a good film and is barely competent at times. But all that doesn't matter because the filmmakers got Michael Jackson music, which is exactly what you want. D+