THIS is why "Michael" is a BAD Biopic..

Welcome to Moonwalk Talks! A Michael Jackson Podcast dedicated to searching out the Facts, Stories, and Theories about the King of Pop! In this episode, Jankins gives a lengthy and detailed explanation on why the 2026 "Michael" Jackson feature film is not necessarily a bad MOVIE, but a bad BIOPIC. We break down what it gets right, what it gets wrong, what it leaves out, and how the choices change the real story. Spoilers ahead. Follow @JANKIINS on Instagram. Subscribe to MoonwalkTalks on YouTube!!

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Hello, Moonwalkers, and welcome to another episode of Moonwalk. Moonwalk Talks is a podcast dedicated to searching out the facts, stories, and theories all about the King of Pop, the greatest entertainer of all time, Michael Moffin Jackson. I'm your host, Jenkins, a bitter old ex-rapper turned DJ and bar event guy that even four years later still feels the need to force his unwanted heretical opinion on you, blindly loyal, hive-minded, glitter-eyed fanboys and girls. And I hear you asking.

SPEAKER_00 0:47

Well, nobody's really asking.

SPEAKER_01 0:50

What you been up to, Jenkins? Well, nothing, just work. I DJ every weekend and run bar events every weekday. Super exciting. I know. But really, for all three of you that probably wonder why I don't update this anymore. I mean, I've said it before, when I started doing this in 2014, there were zero active Michael Jackson podcasts and vlogs, but now there are dozens and dozens. And they're all doing it way better than I ever did. Moonwalk Talks never really blew up the way other podcasts and YouTubers did. So, like over time, I started thinking about something Mike Rowe once said on that uh show Dirty Jobs. He said, Don't follow your passion, bring it with you. So instead of forcing something that wasn't really catching fire, I started putting my energy into the things that were actually working in my life. And honestly, I think there's a lot of truth in that advice. You can take it. Uh the way I've always approached creativity is pretty simple. I only really make something if I feel like it fills a gap that actually needs to be filled, especially now where like there's so much online content that just fits like or feels like it's fitting the algorithm. It's like the same recycled TikTok trends, the same editing styles, the same copied opinions, the same performative outrage. It's like the same reaction faces pasted over the same recycled clips over and over and over again. Let me say over more times. From day one, I've never been interested in just becoming another voice, just screaming into a room that's already crowded. But you know, with all that said, here I am making a brand new episode of Moonwalk Talks anyway. But I mean, I feel like I have an opinion that is significantly different from a lot of the voices that are currently dominating this conversation about this movie. And if I didn't feel like I had something meaningful to say, yeah, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be doing this.

SPEAKER_00 2:39

Also, motherfucking hypocrite.

SPEAKER_01 2:45

So, yeah, on this episode of Moonwalk Talks, I'm gonna give you my review of the highly anticipated first real big budget major studio-produced Michael Jackson Biopic. Now, remember that word biopic, we'll be bringing that up a bunch. Michael, it was released in April of 2026, is a drama based on the life of our guy Michael Jackson, directed by Antoine Fuqua. I think I said that right. Antoine Fuqua. He did movies like Training Day, The Equalizer, and Emancipation. It's also produced by Graham King, the producer behind Bohemian Rhapsody, which I really enjoyed. I like that one. Uh the film stars Jafar Jackson in the lead role of Michael Jackson, who I'm sure everybody knows by now is Michael's own nephew, son of the ever-problematic Jermaine Jackson. Alongside Coleman Domingo, he plays Joe Jackson, Nia Long plays Catherine Jackson, and Miles Teller as a longtime attorney, John Branka. And uh it has a pretty uh massive supporting cast, but you barely get to see him, so who cares? Uh the movie follows Michael from his childhood, starting in 1966 with the Jackson 5 through the heights of global superstardom, finishing in 1988. It touches on the music, the pressure, the fame, the family dynamics and controversies surrounding the King of Pop. Well, at least that's what they set out to do, I think. Possibly. Well, let's just go ahead and get this out out of the way. Um, I don't like this movie. So if you aren't thrilled about hearing an irrelevant old podcaster airing out his grievances about a movie that you probably enjoyed, just turn this off now and go listen to, you know, your favorite MJ personality glaze this movie like academics writing those terrible Drake albums. I'm sure it'll make you feel much better to go listen to some MJ fanatic treating this like it's some fing masterpiece of theatrical cinema. But for the rest of you that are able to handle different opinions and are ready to hear maybe some compelling logical and candid points that may change your feelings on the film, then let's continue to get through this together. Also, quick warning there will be spoilers, obviously, but not sure how I can spoil a movie that has nothing to spoil. So let me explain why this is not a good Michael Jackson biopic. But since the bad will take up the majority of this episode, let's just start with the good. Now, when I started seeing the news about this movie being made, I had the highest of hopes. We are finally getting a real Michael Jackson movie, a big budget, a good director, no flex Alexander in ghost makeup, no side story or VH1 movie. We're getting a real Michael Jackson movie. And they started out so strong, and then they release who they cast as Michael. Jermaine Jackson's fing son Jafar. Jafar Jackson was born on July 25th. He's the son of ex-Jackson 5 member Jermaine Jackson, also a lady named Alejandro Gineviv Ozaiza. I don't know how to say that. Now, if you aren't familiar with these Jackson family dynamics, let me catch you up. Because this situation sounds like a daytime soap opera. Before Alejandra got with Jermaine, she was actually in a relationship with Jermaine's younger brother, Randy Jackson. She had children with Randy first, then somehow, in one of the most baffling relationship pivots in celebrity family history, Jermaine ends up marrying his own brother's ex and having more children with her. Because there obviously aren't enough people in the world. But speaking of other people in the world, more on that in a sec. That means that Jafar grew up in a bizarre situation where some of his cousins are also technically his stepbrothers and sisters at the same time. But really, this is just on par for the Jacksons. So from the jump, I hated the casting of Jafar Jackson. Not because I hate the guy personally, I don't I barely knew he existed, but because the entire thing just reeks of Hollywood nepotism wrapped up and handed it to him in a sequin gift box. And we're talking about Michael Jackson, he's the most famous entertainer in human history, and you're telling me that out of out of all the literal billions of people on this planet, the absolute best possible choice just conveniently happened to be Jermaine Jackson's son? Are we serious? There wasn't a worldwide casting search, no unknown performer somewhere with the hunger, charisma, and obsession to completely disappear into the role. The job just immediately lands in the lap of somebody already sitting at the family dinner table. And what makes it even stranger to me personally is that Jermaine and Michael had a notoriously complicated relationship over the years, especially during certain periods where Jermaine publicly criticized, competed with, or distanced himself from Michael. So there's something that feels insanely wrong about the estate essentially handing one of the biggest acting opportunities in entertainment history directly to Jermaine's son. It just feels like the Jackson family business continuing to operate exactly the way the Jackson family business has always operated. But with all that being said, I'm glad to say I was incredibly wrong. Out of everything I hated about this movie, Jafar was one of the best parts of the film for me. I think that he absolutely nailed it. I think he did an amazing job portraying his uncle. You could tell he seriously put in the work to make this performance as close to his uncle as possible. He honestly did an incredible job. His mannerisms, his moves, the little ticks were all on point. And a couple times in the movie, he really looks like Michael Jackson. Other times it's very obvious that Jermaine's son is cosplaying, but all in all, I was wrong, he proved me wrong, and I apologize for doubting him. I think I put some memes up at the time that he was announced, and you know, I think I made some cracks about his uh about his music and albums. I'm sorry, Jafar. You you did good, I was wrong. There, I admitted it. Now, in that same breath, there is still probably somebody out there that would have been better and not part of the Jackson family. But we got Jafar and he did fantastic. Also, let's not be naive here, okay? Because he was a great dancer and did a great job acting as Michael, but that was not Jafar's voice or vocals. Now, let me be more precise. Jafar was the body, somebody else did the voice, and then they used Michael Jackson's original vocals for all the singing. Well, I would say at least 98% of it. Mark.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

Mark my mother's words.

SPEAKER_01 9:25

I know people are gonna try to argue with me about this, but this wouldn't be the first time that they told you that someone's vocals are authentic.

SPEAKER_00 9:31

Oh snap! Jenkins is bringing the post!

SPEAKER_01 9:35

I'm telling you right now that they either had a voice actor come in for ADR or they used AI. Now I don't really I don't really know if they use AI, but definitely ADR. Jafar didn't sing or talk the dialogue in this film. And hey, filmmakers in a state, if I'm wrong, prove it. Prove it like you did the Michael album. Yup mother. So again, Jafar did great, but so did the ADR and Sound Engineers. Let's be real, I can't prove it, but I bet it's at least 95% movie magic. Other things I can say good about the movie, it was shot well, actors were decent, they played my favorite song during the credits. Uh that was pleasantly unexpected, and that's about it. Well, there's a couple other things, but we'll we'll talk about that later in the review. There's a couple of other good parts. Um, so why am I so adamant about this being a bad movie? Well, let's fix that first. It's not a bad movie, it's a bad biopic. And there's a huge difference between those two things because technically, the movie is competently made, the cinematography is solid, the performances are mostly good, uh, some of the recreations are impressive, the production design looks good, there are moments where you can absolutely feel the power of Michael Jackson as an entertainer, but that's just not enough for a biopic, especially when you're making a movie about somebody as historically important and psychologically complicated as Michael Jackson. A good biopic should capture the essence of a person, not just the appearance. It should make you understand who they were when the stage lights were off. What drove them? What haunted them? What made them brilliant and what made them difficult? A good biopic humanizes the mythology instead of just feeding it. Why is he the guy? Why is Michael Jackson the king of pop and not some not somebody like Donnie Osmond or or Prince? Like lots of artists have great songs, lots of artists can dance well, some of them even have pretty cool music videos, lots of artists get plastic surgery, lots of them had rough childhoods and weird quirks. That's all the movie showed you. That's it. Never gave you the opportunity to understand who Michael truly was. It was very surface level stuff here. But see, the best biopics understand something really important. You do not honor a legendary person by pretending they were flawless, you honor them by treating them like a human being instead of a corporate mascot trapped inside of a flashy display case. That's why movies like Rocket Man work so incredibly well. Like that's one of my favorite biopics ever. Because Elton John was allowed to be portrayed as messy, selfish, insecure, self-destructive, arrogant, lonely. The movie trusted the audience enough to show the ugly parts without acting like it was betraying him. But Michael constantly feels afraid, is afraid to dig too deep, afraid to challenge the mythology, afraid to step up to the estate, afraid to let Michael feel too human for too long before rushing back into another concert, recreation, or applause moment. And that's where this movie completely misses the mark for me as a biopic. Because Michael Jackson was not interesting simply because he danced well and sold records, he was interesting because he was one of the most gifted, isolated, beloved, damaged, and psychologically complicated human beings to ever exist in popular culture. But instead of fully exploring that complexity, the movie often feels like it's carefully walking through a legal minefield while trying not to damage the Michael Jackson brand. It becomes less about understanding Michael the person and more about preserving Michael Jackson, the global product. And once a biopic starts protecting the brand more than exploring the human being, it stops feeling honest. You can feel the walls around it, you can feel the improved talking points, the selective framing. Now, I know they couldn't add certain things due to legal reasons, but if you can't tell the whole story, just don't tell the story. And that's why I walked out feeling frustrated because underneath all the expensive recreations and popular music cues, there's a much more powerful movie trapped in there somewhere, screaming to get out. And I heard there's a four-hour cut. I need to see that for our director's cut. If it exists. Honestly, what did the general audience learn about Michael that they didn't already know? He got out of mentally abused and physically abused by his dad? Well, everybody knows that. Sitcoms and comedians have been making Joe Jackson jokes for decades. Okay, so he was famous at a young age. Yep, we knew that because we saw him famous at a young age. Okay, so he wrote great music and helped create amazing music music videos, got a nose job, and a monkey named Bubbles. Yep, due to popular culture, everybody knew that. Now sprinkle in some musical performances, and that's the movie. Entertaining movie, but a failed biopic. Now, before I get to the nitpicky type stuff about the movie, I'm trying to be a better person, so I feel if people are going to critique the problems, they should at least try to offer a solution. Too many people saying what's wrong with the issues and not presenting solutions. So let's talk about how this could have been a proper biopick. So during this critique and breakdown, I will also be explaining how they could have made this better. As somebody who would probably qualify as a self-appointed Michael Jackson historian at this point, I spent decades consuming virtually everything I get my hands on regarding Michael, like about his career, his family, the people orbiting around him, books, documentaries, court transcripts, interviews, home footage, industry stories, biographies, testimonies, all that. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours trying to piece together the psychology of one of the most complicated figures in modern history. Now I didn't do this in the last week, I'm talking about I did this my entire life, been doing this my entire life. And even though the Michael Jackson story is filled with contradictions, conflicting accounts, and layers of mythology, depending on who's telling the story, there are still a handful of major defining moments and emotional through lines that clearly shaped Michael into the person he eventually became. Starting out, the opening already tells you what kind of movie this is. It uses the electricity of the real Bad Tour audio to inject nostalgia immediately, but then cuts away before Jafar can really do anything. So there's no wannabe starting performance at the beginning. They have the music, but then it just cuts away. And maybe instead of opening with applause and bad tour spectacle, there was a more interesting way in something like using the song Smile. That would have told us that the movie was interested in the sadness underneath the performance, not just Michael Jackson the icon. Alright. Another issue is the pacing. This movie moves way too fast. Barely any time passes before the Jackson siblings are suddenly the Jackson 5, and we really don't get to see how that happened or why. Tito's pivotal role in the beginning of the group isn't brought up at all, so here is the first instance of writing off the brothers. The desperation of the family is also softened. The tiny house and Gary, the boys sharing beds, the sisters sleeping on couches, the lack of space, the lack of privacy. All of that matters because it explains the pressure cooker this family came out of. Without that context, Joe Jackson becomes easier to portray as a straight villain instead of a deeply flawed, desperate father whose ambition and control eventually became poisonous. And listen, I'm not defending Joe Jackson, I'm not pretending the man didn't do damage. I mean, give him complexity, but don't just make him some bad guy because he was he was a bad guy at points. Well, a lot of points. That on-screen tension between Joseph and Michael is still one of the strongest parts of the movie. Those scenes really work. There's real weight there. Um, and it's especially complicated knowing that Jafar is reenacting moments involving his real grandfather. But I do think the movie loses nuance by making Joseph feel like the final form villain Joe from the very beginning. And why leave out the fact that Jackson's siblings were performing in bars and clubs and adult nightlife environments at a ridiculously young age? The movie frames it like they were just simply performing for adults. But the reality was way heavier than that. Those boys were exposed to adult spaces, adult behavior, and late-night entertainment culture when he was still a little little kid. That kind of thing absolutely affects a child psychologically, especially one already dealing with the pressure fame and parental control. And as I said before, they're skipping an important milestone. You just can't breeze through these things or make them less than. You can't glaze over the family issues and connections. And this leads me into one of the movie's biggest problems. The brothers are barely characters or even fing there. I understand that the movie is called Michael. Obviously, Michael is a sinner, but the brothers were massive parts of his life. They shaped him emotionally, professionally, and psychologically. In storytelling, if someone is going to affect the main character, you have to set them up. Otherwise, why would we care when they hurt him, leave him, disappoint him, or like drift away from him? The movie doesn't just fail to flesh out the brothers, it barely gives them enough screen time for casual audiences to know which brother is which. I know the family history, and even on the fourth and fifth watch, I had moments where I couldn't confidently tell you which actor was playing which brother. That becomes a real problem later. Stick with me, we'll get there. This movie makes Michael feel lonely almost immediately, even as a kid. But young Michael was close with his brothers for a long time. They grew up together, they traveled together, they rehearsed together, they slept in cramped rooms together, they built this impossible dream together. It was them versus Joe. The real separation happened gradually. Jermaine Jackson staying with Motown was a massive fracture, Michael wanted to go solo was another. The family didn't just wake up and emotionally disconnect one day, the distance had a history. But this movie skips so much of that history that certain moments that are meant to be emotional, they just don't fully land. The twister scene is a perfect example. Adult Michael wants his brothers to play Twister with him, and the movie clearly wants it to feel sad, like he's trying to reconnect with a lost version of the family. But because the movie never really showed us that warmth earlier or how the brothers have moved on with families and things of their own, the scene has less impact than it should. And and on a side note, his brothers were like already playing basketball. Like, why didn't he just join his brothers? Basketball is a game just as much as Twister is a game, so if he wanted to play a game with his brothers, just join and play basketball with them. It's the same thing when like Michael tells the brothers that he won't tour with them anymore. That should feel devastating. That should feel like the symbolic death of the original Jackson Brotherhood as a functioning unit. Instead, it because the movie never built up those relationships, it just lands more like a career update and then on to the next time jump. Also, the handling of Jermaine leaving the group is one of the most baffling choices in the entire movie. This was not some tiny detail. Jermaine was one of the brothers Michael was closest to. And when the family left Motown, Jermaine choosing to stay behind because of his relationship at the time was a massive emotional betrayal in Michael's eyes. That moment mattered because it shattered the idea that the brothers were always going to move together as one unit. Suddenly, business, loyalty, ambition, and family were pulling them in different directions. And the movie basically treats it like uh like a nothing. I mean, not that I know, but could that be because Jermaine's son is playing the lead role? Let's not make Jermaine the bad guy now. So just push that out of the movie. Dumb choice. These are the kinds of moments a biopic should build around. That's emotional architecture, but Michael keeps skipping over the psychological earthquakes while obsessing over the flashy fireworks. Just hot dogging and grandstanding. The movie also glosses over major people and eras that shaped Michael. Barry Gordy barely feels like a real presence. Suzanne De Pass is barely treated like an important figure. Diana Ross is almost completely absent as an emotional and psychological force. The whiz is barely explored, even though it directly connects to Michael meeting Quincy Jones and beginning the next major phase of his artistic life. And how cool would that scene have been where MJ and Quincy had that dialogue about him producing his first real solo album that would have been epic to see on screen. And suddenly we jump from Jackson 5 history to Michael and Quincy talking about off the wall. So we get none of that. The movie doesn't really show the scale of the Jackson 5 mania either. These kids weren't just popular, they weren't just playing small fairs, they were a cultural phenomenon. But because the film rushes so aggressively, Michael's transition into solo superstardom doesn't feel as earned narratively as it should. And then barely 50 minutes in, we're already working on Thriller. Which is insane because Off the Wall was not some tiny warm-up lap before Thriller. It was a massive turning point in Michael's identity as an adult artist. It represented freedom, confidence, growth, independence, frustration with the industry. Especially after Michael felt the album wasn't taken seriously enough critically despite its massive success. All that emotional fuel leads directly into why he became so obsessive with thriller. But the movie keeps treating entire eras like transitional filler. They also reduced Michael's appearance issues mostly down to Joe made fun of his nose. And yes, that absolutely mattered, but it was more layered than that. Michael was a young black superstar growing up inside an image-obsessed industry, surrounded by polished white teen idols like Donnie Osman and other heartthrob celebrities who represented the beauty standard of the time. His insecurities didn't just happen in a vacuum. Fame, race, beauty standards, acne, media pressure, and celebrity culture were all colliding inside that kid's self-image. It should have shown that. And this pacing issue becomes even more confusing when you remember the movie only goes to 1988. If this was one three-hour movie trying to cover 1966 to 2009, I can understand the rush, but this only goes to the bad tour. And they already knew they were gonna make two movies. So why are we skipping why are we skipping foundational relationships? Emotional turning points in creative evolution. Why are we skipping that? So are we skipping it so we can make more room for CGI bubbles? Let's talk about that. The CGI bubble stuff really bothered me. Not because bubble shouldn't be in the movie, I understand bubbles became part of Michael's public image, but the execution felt cartoonish. Almost like the movie temporarily turned into a Disney Plus live action remake. It's like every time the little guy showed up. It was distracting. And when the movie is already rushing through major relationships, missing emotional context, and skipping important eras, it becomes very noticeable when so much time and money is being spent on uncanny CGI monkey scenes. That money could have gone somewhere else. That time could have gone somewhere else. And also, I'm sure somebody's already made the joke about Moonwalkers. Go ahead and insert your own Robbie Williams monkey movie joke here. Another thing that kept pulling me out was the music placement. Or as they call them, needle drops. A music biopic should understand that songs are emotional time machines. They anchor us to a specific era, a specific mindset, and a specific version of the artist, especially with Michael Jackson. He was so different from album to album. But this movie keeps shuffling Michael's eras into one giant nostalgic blob. During the off the wall era, after the movie just spent time hyping up how important the album is, they played Dreamer by the Jacksons. Instead of something, you know, something off the wall. Hey, hey, hey, I have a question for you. Why though? Then later, Michael storms out of a meeting with Joseph and the movie drops Stop Dogging Me Around. Which pulls us back into Child Michael territory again. At that point in the story, we're supposed to be watching Michael grow, become more independent, separate from childhood Michael Jackson. So why not use Off the Wall or get a more recent Jackson's track that actually fits where the characters are emotionally? Get on the floor. While not lyrically attached to the scene, the energy of the track would have matched him storming out of his dad's meeting. And then during the Victory Tour, the movie very obviously uses the 1988 bad tour version of human nature. Okay, and I get it, casual fans and general audiences probably won't notice. But if you know the live eras, it's obnoxious. Michael didn't perform it like that yet. The vocals, arrangement, atmosphere, and delivery are all bad tour Michael. So why are we doing this during the victory tour? You can't just drag and drop 1988 Michael into 1984 Michael. If this movie is supposed to be for general audiences and hardcore fans, why do us that way? And clearly, the filmmakers weren't completely opposed to using non-jacks and music when it served the atmosphere because they include money during the early Motown material. So that makes some of the better, more obvious song choices later even more frustrating. They could take a musical swing when they wanted to, they just didn't do it enough. Maybe instead of so many out-of-place needle drops, they could have just interpolated Michael's original music into the score more often. They did it a couple times and it worked really well. I remember hearing Ben, uh I was uh Ben and uh I'll be there. I remember hearing those two. But the movie would have been a lot stronger if they leaned into that more instead of just throwing full songs at scenes that don't always fit the era or emotion. It's jarring. There are so many moments where the movie is right on the edge of a better idea and then somehow misses it. The Ben performance is one of them. In real life, around that era, Michael would sometimes interrupt older material and pivot into newer off-the-wall songs, almost symbolically telling the audience he was no longer just a little boy singing Ben. That would have been perfect for the movie. Have him stop Ben, acknowledge the old material, and then explode into an off-the-wall performance. That would show his growth in real time. It would be a musical number and character development. Instead, the movie keeps emotionally clinging to child-era nostalgia, even during the part of the story where Michael is trying to escape that image. The movie also skips the starlight part of Thriller's whole creation, which is frustrating because that story shows the actual process behind greatness. Thriller didn't just descend from the heavens, fully formed, it evolved. There were earlier ideas, revisions, experimentation, refining. Starlight also was a point where he was trying to move past just being a disco guy. You know? There are levels to this. Anyway, that's the stuff that makes genius and collaboration interesting. Same with the real inspiration behind Thriller. Michael's fascination with American Werewolf in London and those transformation effects is important because it directly explains why John Landis became and why Thriller became cinematic instead of just being another music video. In the movie, they show Michael watching House of Wax featuring Vincent Price, which I understand is a cute little breadcrumb because Vincent Price later does the rap on Thriller, but that's not the real creative spark behind the thriller short film. The more important inspiration was Michael seeing an American Werewolf in London and wanting that John Landis transformation movie magic. So again, the movie chooses a tidy reference over the actual creative chain of events. The Beat It sequence has some problems too. The movie makes it look like gang members were involved during the dance rehearsals, but the real gang members were only part of the actual video shoot because of where MJ wanted to shoot. And Michael didn't choreograph Beat It by himself. Michael Peters choreographed it and also appeared in the video as one of the gang leaders. Now I'm not saying that the movie has to stop every five minutes to announce every collaborator Michael ever worked with, but if you're going to dedicate an entire scene to Michael working through the Beat It choreography, maybe give some kind of slight nod to Michael Peters, the man who actually choreographed the thing and helped shape one of the most iconic music videos ever made. The movie keeps framing Michael like he existed in a creative vacuum. Like every legendary visual, dance move, and culture of movement simply materialized out of his brain with no meaningful collaboration or influence. No Bob Fossey, no Fred Astaire. Well, I think they showed him on TV once or twice. Michael was obviously a once-in-a-lifetime artist, but part of telling an honest story about genius is acknowledging the creative ecosystem around that genius. Also, yes, and this is nitpicky fan historian bullshit. But I wouldn't be me if I wasn't petty. But even the wardrobe it beat it, it felt wrong because they used the piano key shirt in a section where Michael Jackson would have the darker blue and black dance look. I know it's a tiny thing, sure, but when a movie is like they're spending $200 million to make this thing, it's and it's about one of the most detailed obsessed entertainers who ever lived. I mean the details kind of matter. Now look, I completely understand why the movie recreates things like Beat It, Thriller, Billy Jean, and uh that Motown. I get it. It's fan service. Those are iconic moments. General audiences want to see them, they expect to see them. But at a certain point, I started asking myself, who exactly these full long-ass recreations are for? Michael Jackson performances are not lost media. You can literally go watch the real Michael do thriller right now. And you can watch the real Motown 25 performance right now. All the originals are always going to be better because it's actually Michael Jackson. So when the movie spends huge chunks of runtime painstakingly recreating things that we already have direct access to while rushing through emotional fractures and psychological turning points we haven't really seen dramatized properly, or performances that we don't have high quality or any access to, it starts feeling like the movie is prioritizing applause over insight. This movie also has the habit of taking emotionally significant real life moments and turning them into hollow visual callbacks. The young Michael holding the mic for Jermaine during I'll Be There is clearly referencing the Motown 25 moment where adult Michael helped Jermaine when his mic wasn't working. But the reason that real moment mattered was because of all the tension between them by that point. Michael could have let Jermaine look stupid in front of millions of people, but he instinctively helped his brother. That was a small moment of grace inside years of complicated family history. In the movie, it becomes more like, remember this thing? Fan service without any emotional weight. Eventually, it starts to feel less like a biopic and more like a very expensive Michael Jackson tribute show stitched together with some Wikipedia summaries in between the songs. And then there's John Branka. Whether people love him, hate him, or fall somewhere in the middle, Brenka is one of the most controversial figures in Michael Jackson history among large parts of the fan community. Some fans see him as a brilliant businessman who helped preserve and stabilize Michael's state. Other fans view him with extreme suspicion because of the amount of power and influence he accumulated around Michael's catalog, Business Affairs, and Posthumous Brand. We don't have to get lost in all of that here. The main point is this: the movie gives John Brinka a lot of narrative importance. He gets a whole cinematic introduction. Barry Gordy didn't get that, Jermaine doesn't get that, Quincy doesn't even get that level of development. And these are people who were emotionally and historically foundational to Michael's life. Meanwhile, Brinka gets framed in this movie like some badass who's Michael's new protector. And after that Pepsi Byrne scene, which is one of the strongest and most traumatic movies of the moment, who shows up to confront Michael with a Mickey Mouse plush?

SPEAKER_00 34:30

John Frenka.

SPEAKER_01 34:35

Not his brothers, not Quincy, not LaToya. Apparently, the emotional support character of this movie is John Brinka, descending from the heavens with Disney merchandise, like some sort of corporate guardian angel. It's egregious. Genuinely egregious. And it becomes hard not to notice when you know who had a major role in making this movie. Spoiler, John Brinkka. He was heavily involved. Now, the Walter Yetnikov scene, he absolutely belongs in the movie. He was very important to Michael's career, especially during the thriller era and the MTV epic uh records politics. My issue is not that Walter is in the movie. My issue is that Mike Myers is in the movie. My issue is the cameo bullshit. It pulled me completely out of the film. And I already had a foot out the door. It felt less like, here's an important industry figure in Michael's life, and more like, hey, everybody remember Bohemian Rhapsody, where he did this exact same thing in the other biopic we did. And yes, I get that Mike Myers had a cameo in Bohemian Rhapsody, but that made sense because of the Wayne's World connection to Queen. If they wanted a like a fun, silly little cameo connected to Michael's world, like why not Weird Ow? Put some prosthetics on that man. Weird Out. I mean, at least Weird Ow represents Michael's actual pop culture dominance. Or even like somebody like Macaulay Colkin would have been cool. He had more thematic connection to Michael's world than Mike Myers. Again, the Walter scene should obviously be there, but the casting and tone made it feel more like uh an industry wink than part of Michael's actual story. And if I didn't mention it earlier, uh to give the movie real credit, the Pepsi Burns sequence is probably one of the strongest parts of the entire film. The scene actually slows down long enough to let the audience feel the horror and impact of what happened: the panic, the confusion, the physical pain, the shock of this larger-than-life person suddenly becoming fragile and human. For one of the few times in the movie, it stops mythologizing Michael and allows us to sit with the trauma that genuinely changed his life physically and psychologically. That scene had some weight, it had consequence, and it reminded me that there is a much more emotionally grounded movie buried somewhere underneath all the spectacle. Here's some more nitpicky stuff, but maybe if they would have spent less money on CGI bubbles, they could have put more money into the CGI hair fire. It didn't look bad, but it could have looked better. But moving on back to the problems, and I guess there's another nitpick. Uh, but the audience Xers really never looked period correct to me. A lot of them looked like people from the 2020s dressed up as people from the 80s. Like they had hours and hours of literal reference material. They could have just watched all the old videos and copied exactly how the people looked back then. It's all on video. And I know that all sounds small, but Michael Jackson was one of the biggest perfectionists in entertainment history. This was a man who was obsessed over lighting cues, camera angles, wardrobe, timing, vocal area, and choreography details down to the microscopic levels. So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a movie about Michael Jackson to strive for the same level of obsessive authenticity. And this is where you kind of get to what the movie is really about. Uh, the deeper I got into the movie, the more it felt like the film wasn't really about understanding Michael Jackson as a complete human being. It's just put him in neat little boxes. Like, why did the movie lean so hard into the Peter Pan thing? Yes, Michael identified with Peter Pan's symbolism. That's not the issue. The issue is when the movie reduces his emotional complexity down to he just wanted to stay a kid forever, it was so much more than that. It felt like the movie's primary interest was exploring Michael's deeply oppressive relationship with Joseph Jackson. And then using musical recreation and nostalgia sequences to bridge the gaps. They start with Joseph, they end with Joseph. And yes, Joseph is very critical to understanding Michael. That relationship shaped him in enormous ways, but Michael Jackson was more than just trauma, more than fear, more than damaged child becomes superstar. He was funny, competitive, insecure, controlling, generous, obsessive. Yes, he was childish, but he was also brilliant, very lonely, strange, spiritual. He could be manipulative at times, he was also warm at times, but all in all, he was deeply complicated. That is the Michael Jackson story. I wanted the movie to have the courage to explore. Instead, Michael often exists in only two modes, Michael performing or Michael suffering because of Joseph. And while those are real parts of his story, they are nowhere near the whole person. And honestly, this is my main issue with the entire biopic. My biggest frustration isn't that they skip certain songs or rush certain eras or use the wrong live version of human nature, or that they gave John Branca the emotional support plushy entrance of the century. My biggest frustration is that this movie had a chance to help general audiences finally understand Michael Jackson. Not just the fans, not just the crazy people like me who have spent decades doing all the book reading and watching the interviews and studying the family history and digging through the contradictions and trying to understand the psychology of this man. I mean regular people, casual viewers, people who only knew the headlines or only know the headlines. People and fans who may have turned on Michael later in life because of the allegations, the plastic surgery, the public weirdness, the jokes, the tabloids, the late-night monologues, the documentaries, the mugshot, the wacko jack-o press machine. We needed to bring them back. The movie could have had a chance to say, here is why Michael became this way. Why did he surround himself with children as an adult? Why was he comfortable with kids being around him in private spaces? Why did he have intimacy issues? Why did dating and adult relationships seem so complicated for him? Why did he distance himself from friends and family later in life? Why did he struggle so deeply with trust? Why did he feel completely alone while constantly surrounded by people? Why did this man, one of the most famous human beings who ever lived, die from an accidental overdose trying to sleep? Those are the questions a real Michael Jackson biopic should be emotionally building toward. And I'm not saying the movie has to excuse everything, I'm not saying it has to turn into a defense documentary, I'm saying a biopic should help the audience understand the human behind the behavior. It would make the public love and understand him on a deeper level. Because if you don't explore the childhood, the adult environments, the lack of privacy, the religious pressure, the family fractures, the betrayal, the isolation, the body image issues, the fame machine, the industry manipulation, the loneliness, the creative obsession, the broken trust. Then the later Michael Jackson doesn't make sense to the people who don't already know the story. Hardcore fans can fill in those blanks ourselves. We already know the missing chapters, but the general audiences don't. And that's why this movie feels like such a missed opportunity. It could have helped the entire world understand why so many of us still defend Michael. Not blindly, not because we think every choice he made was correct or normal, but because when you actually study the full story, you start seeing the damaged human being underneath the spectacle. But instead, the movie gives people the image of Michael Jackson without fully explaining the person who created that image. And that becomes an even bigger problem when you realize they were clearly setting up a sequel. Because what are they going to do now? Are they going to explain all that in part two? Are they suddenly going to unpack the psychology, the isolation, the allegations, the marriage, the kids, the drug dependency, the death, the trial, the media destruction, the business betrayals, and the public collapse? After skipping so many of the foundational pieces in part one? See, that's a problem. Because if part one ends in 1988, then certain things need to be set up before 1988. A perfect example is Paul McCartney teaching Michael Jackson about music publishing. That was a massive moment. Paul explains the value of owning songs, Michael listens, and then Michael eventually buys the ATV catalog, which include the Beatles publishing. It showed how calculated and aggressive Michael could be when it came to business. That decision had major consequences for Michael's relationships, his business empire, and the industry's perception of him, and a lot of the storylines that followed him for the rest of his life. So, what happens in the sequel? Are they gonna flash back to 1984 after the first movie already ended in 1988? That would be ridiculous. The writers already set themselves up for failure because they skipped the moments they needed to set up important moments for the sequel.

SPEAKER_00 44:00

It's just dumb.

SPEAKER_01 44:05

He makes dangerous, more performances, more plastic surgery, makes history, gets married, gets divorced, has kids, dies, sprinkle in some musical numbers, roll credits. And if that's the plan, like why even make these fing movies? Because also, how do you make a movie that ends during the bad era and not include Man in the Mirror? That's criminal. And speaking of criminal, no smooth criminal either. Come on. And they're gonna show the making of off the wall and the making of thriller, but then they don't show the making of bad. It just goes into bad performances. Those aren't just songs, those are identity markers. Man in the Mirror, especially, could have carried enormous thematic weight in a movie supposedly interested in Michael Jackson's inner life, public image, and desire to change the world while being unable to fully heal himself. And that's what kills me about this movie. It had the platform, the budget, the family access, the music rights, the attention of the world, and the opportunity to show general audiences what hardcore fans already understand. It had the chance to say, you may think you know Michael Jackson, but here is the full emotional machinery behind the myth. And instead, it mostly says, Remember this outfit? Remember this dance? Remember this video? Remember Bubbles? Oh, also, here is his nephew doing all the stuff you can just go watch on your smartphone right now.

SPEAKER_00 45:38

That's just not enough.

SPEAKER_01 45:45

Not for Michael Ma fucking Jackson. And when it really comes down to it, this is probably the simplest way I can explain my reaction to this movie. I felt absolutely nothing. Nothing. Through the entire movie, all the way until the credits rolled, I felt nothing. I mean, aside from disappointment. And that's insane to me. Because we're talking about Michael Jackson here. This is the guy who has made me feel emotions through music, dance, short films, imagery, stories, performances, moonwalks, moments. This is somebody who is my superman. He's been my like my Batman since I was five years old. Michael Jackson is not an emotionally neutral subject for me. He never has been. Even things I didn't completely love, like the MJ musical, still got to me emotionally. There were moments where the acting hit me, where the music cues worked, where I felt happiness in my heart, or tears forming. I've seen Michael Jackson won in Vegas more times than I can even reasonably justify at this point. And even after the 20th time seeing it, I still felt something. I still got chills. I still felt that little spark in my chest that reminds me of why Michael mattered so much to me in the first place. But this movie, nothing. Not a tear, not a real smile. I mean, I giggle when that kid and his mom noticed MJ in the store. That was pretty funny. But never that deep emotional punch that I expected to feel watching the life of the artist who shaped so much of how I understand entertainment, performance, and magic. And that might be the most damning thing I could say about it. Because a Michael Jackson biopic should not leave a lifelong Michael Jackson fan emotionally blank. It should overwhelm me. It should frustrate me. It should challenge me. It should make me cry. It should make me feel proud, sad, angry, inspired, uncomfortable, something. But instead, it left me sitting there hollow, watching a technically polished, expensive, estate-approved recreation of moments that should have meant everything to me and somehow meant almost nothing. That is how emotionally void this project felt. So when I say Michael is a bad biopic, this is what I mean. I'm not saying there are no strong scenes, I'm not saying there are no good performances, I'm not saying the movie has no value. Young Michael works, Jafar and the ADR team did great, the Pepsi Burn scene works, the Joseph Tension works, and some of the recreations are cool to see. But the movie doesn't consistently understand why these moments mattered, what they cost, who helped shape them, what wounds they came from, and how they changed the person at the center of them. The movie understands the image of Michael Jackson, but I don't think that it fully represents Michael. And for a movie literally called Michael, that's the part I just can't get past. So there it is. My thoughts on the Michael movie. But it it doesn't matter what I think. The movie is about to pass a billion dollars worldwide, it's a success, and I am a nobody. But I appreciate you listening though. This is where I normally do the like and subscribe part, but who knows when I'll upload another one of these. It could be next month, could be another four years. Uh but if you really want to see what I'm up to, you can follow me on Instagram. That's Jenkins, the two eyes, J-A-N-K-I-I-N-S. Or you can just add me on Facebook, DJ Jenkins. That's facebook.com slash DJ Jenkins. J-A-N-K-I-N-S. And if you were in the Tulsa area, it's Tulsa, Oklahoma. I don't see why anybody wouldn't be there. But come out and see me DJ sometime. I DJ different places every single weekend, and I'm always throwing Michael Jackson into the mix. Anyway, thanks again for giving me your time. And remember, no matter what happens today or tomorrow, keep your head up, keep the faith, and don't forget to smile.