Michael Jackson Biopic Becomes Box Office Hit

Michael Jackson biopic 'Michael' shatters records with $95 million U.S. opening and $206.4 million global debut, becoming record-breaking box office success despite critical backlash over omission of abuse allegations.

Objective Facts

Director Antoine Fuqua's Michael Jackson biopic 'Michael' opened April 24, 2026, to $94-100 million domestically and $206.4 million globally, the biggest opening ever for a music biopic. The film stars Jaafar Jackson, Michael Jackson's real nephew, in his feature debut and covers Jackson's life from the Jackson 5 through the 1988 Bad tour. The film was heavily reshot after filmmakers discovered that a 1993 settlement between Jackson and accuser Jordan Chandler included a clause prohibiting any depiction or mention of Chandler, forcing substantial footage to be cut. Critics praised Jaafar Jackson's performance but criticized the film as 'sanitized,' with 38% approval on Rotten Tomatoes and a Metacritic score of 39. Audiences responded more positively, giving the film an A- CinemaScore and 94% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, treating it as critic-proof entertainment.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time delivered sharp criticism of the new Michael biopic, accusing the film of deliberately bypassing the child abuse allegations that surrounded Michael Jackson during his life. IndieWire critic Kate Erbland wrote that by omitting the allegations, 'the final film has been mostly stripped of any humanity, good and bad,' calling it 'glossy, sanitised, and surprisingly dull'. Globe and Mail critic Sarah-Tai Black argued that Fuqua's complete refusal to investigate negative aspects of Jackson's character perpetuates a 'continuing defensiveness at odds with true art'. Dan Reed, director of Leaving Neverland, criticized singer's estate, director Antoine Fuqua, and the moviegoing public, asking 'How can you tell an authentic story about Michael Jackson without ever mentioning the fact that he was seriously accused of being a child molester? I just don't really see it'. Reed revealed he saw a leaked early script portraying accuser Jordan Chandler and his parents as 'exploitative, manipulative extortionists,' saying he 'laughed and retched' at how this was 'spectacularly cruel, given that Jordan and his mom are still alive'. Reed argued that 'anyone's making money' from the film is the Jackson estate and its workers, while Leaving Neverland subjects Wade Robson and James Safechuck 'never made a cent from their accusations'. The Guardian notes that telling Jackson's story without engaging fully with the accusations risks narrowing perspective on a figure whose life remains deeply contested, with some reviewers suggesting the film leans more toward celebration than examination. Left-leaning coverage emphasizes that legal constraints, while real, do not excuse the choice to present Jackson uncritically or hint that a sequel could explore these issues later—the film as currently released, they argue, amounts to state-sponsored hagiography.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Michael's nephew Taj Jackson defended the film on social media, posting 'Sorry media, u don't get to control the narrative anymore of who Michael Jackson truly was. The public gets to watch this movie … they will decide for themselves'. TJ Jackson, Taj's brother, posted he would rewatch the film 'Because I'm proud,' saying 'I wouldn't miss this opportunity to be masked in the electrifying energy that will be in that theatre for nothing' and 'My uncle deserves this, my cousin earned this and his loyal supporters are owed this'. As audiences scored the film 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, TJ declared 'Don't ever listen to professional critics when it comes to my family. Ever'. Actor Colman Domingo, who plays Joseph Jackson, defended the film's timeline on the Today Show, explaining it 'takes place from the '60s to 1988, so it does not go into the first allegations in, what, 2005,' and that the film tells Jackson's story 'through his eyes' with 'the possibility of there being a part two that may deal with other things'. Lionsgate Motion Picture Group chair Adam Fogelson rejected claims the film whitewashes Jackson's life, praising director Antoine Fuqua and producer Graham King as committed to authenticity and defending the film as 'culturally important' while hinting at a second installment. Among supporters, there is a prevailing sense that Jackson was 'hunted' by the press during his life, and seeing the film skip over what many consider to be debunked or sensationalized tabloid stories is viewed as a victory for the artist's memory rather than a narrative flaw. Right-leaning and family defense emphasizes audience reception as proof the film succeeds artistically and commercially, dismissing critic disapproval as ideologically motivated. They argue the film's timeline is legitimate—it ends before allegations surfaced—and that sequels can address later chapters if desired.

Deep Dive

The specific angle of this story is not the film's box office success per se, but rather the collision between **blockbuster audience appetite** and **critical consensus that the film's omission of abuse allegations is a fundamental flaw**. The context runs deep: In 2019, director Dan Reed's Leaving Neverland documentary catalyzed a growing reassessment of Jackson's legacy after nearly a decade of production detailing sexual-abuse allegations by Wade Robson and James Safechuck. However, after Michael's filming wrapped in 2024, the Jackson estate discovered that a 1993 settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler contained a clause prohibiting depiction or mention of him, forcing substantial reshoots to remove abuse-related content from the third act. What critics and defenders each get right: Progressive critics correctly identify that the film, as released, does not grapple with allegations at all—the film received mostly negative reviews from critics who praised Jaafar Jackson's performance but criticized the story as 'sanitized'. Dan Reed's core argument—that telling an 'authentic story about Michael Jackson' while omitting serious molestation accusations is conceptually incoherent—has rhetorical force. At the same time, film defenders correctly note that the narrative legitimately ends in 1988, before the 1993 allegations, and the film centers on 'the makings of Michael'. Bohemian Rhapsody, which similarly drew 60% critic approval while earning 85% audience approval and grossing $910+ million, shows this pattern repeating—suggesting audiences and critics have different tolerance for hagiography in music biopics. What each side omits: Critics largely avoid confronting why audiences gave the film an A- CinemaScore and 94-96% verified rating—a phenomenon that transcends partisan disagreement about Jackson himself. It suggests a segment of the public actively *prefers* celebratory, non-confrontational entertainment about beloved cultural figures. Family defenders, meanwhile, sidestep the harder question: even granting the legal constraint on Chandler, Reed noted 'there are many other stories that they could have done'—Wade Robson and James Safechuck's accounts in Leaving Neverland are not covered by the Chandler settlement, yet the film avoids engaging with them entirely. What to watch: An appellate court overturned earlier dismissals of Robson and Safechuck's lawsuits, allowing both cases to move to jury trial in November 2026. That trial will introduce *new* legal and factual uncertainty to the public record, potentially reopening debate about Jackson's legacy just as this film's theatrical run concludes. Additionally, if a sequel materializes, the question of whether it will address post-1988 allegations will determine whether defenders' promise of later chapters was genuine or a deflection tactic.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Michael Jackson Biopic Becomes Box Office Hit

Michael Jackson biopic 'Michael' shatters records with $95 million U.S. opening and $206.4 million global debut, becoming record-breaking box office success despite critical backlash over omission of abuse allegations.

Apr 25, 2026· Updated Apr 26, 2026
What's Going On

Director Antoine Fuqua's Michael Jackson biopic 'Michael' opened April 24, 2026, to $94-100 million domestically and $206.4 million globally, the biggest opening ever for a music biopic. The film stars Jaafar Jackson, Michael Jackson's real nephew, in his feature debut and covers Jackson's life from the Jackson 5 through the 1988 Bad tour. The film was heavily reshot after filmmakers discovered that a 1993 settlement between Jackson and accuser Jordan Chandler included a clause prohibiting any depiction or mention of Chandler, forcing substantial footage to be cut. Critics praised Jaafar Jackson's performance but criticized the film as 'sanitized,' with 38% approval on Rotten Tomatoes and a Metacritic score of 39. Audiences responded more positively, giving the film an A- CinemaScore and 94% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, treating it as critic-proof entertainment.

Left says: Progressive critics like Bill Maher argue the film sanitizes Jackson's legacy by completely ignoring child abuse allegations, treating serious accusations as if they never happened. Director Dan Reed questions how an 'authentic story about Michael Jackson' can be told 'without ever mentioning the fact that he was seriously accused of being a child molester,' arguing 'people don't care that he was a child molester'.
Right says: Michael Jackson's family members Taj and TJ Jackson defend the film, with Taj saying critics no longer control the narrative and TJ praising how 'my uncle's essence is captured'. The family position emphasizes that skipping allegations reflects justice against how Jackson was 'hunted' by the press, viewing the omission as a victory for his memory rather than a distortion.
✓ Common Ground
Both critics and defenders acknowledge that Jaafar Jackson delivered an impressive performance, with critics praising his acting despite reservations about the film's overall approach.
Both sides recognize that legal constraints—specifically a 1993 settlement clause barring depiction of accuser Jordan Chandler—forced the film to remove abuse-related content from the third act.
Several commentators across ideological lines note that music biopics like Bohemian Rhapsody have received similar critic-versus-audience splits, with the Queen film earning 60% from critics but 85% from audiences and eventually grossing over $910 million globally, suggesting such films often succeed commercially despite critical skepticism.
Some observers on both sides acknowledge that a potential sequel offers an opportunity to explore allegations and Jackson's later life controversies if the studio and estate choose to do so.
Objective Deep Dive

The specific angle of this story is not the film's box office success per se, but rather the collision between **blockbuster audience appetite** and **critical consensus that the film's omission of abuse allegations is a fundamental flaw**. The context runs deep: In 2019, director Dan Reed's Leaving Neverland documentary catalyzed a growing reassessment of Jackson's legacy after nearly a decade of production detailing sexual-abuse allegations by Wade Robson and James Safechuck. However, after Michael's filming wrapped in 2024, the Jackson estate discovered that a 1993 settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler contained a clause prohibiting depiction or mention of him, forcing substantial reshoots to remove abuse-related content from the third act.

What critics and defenders each get right: Progressive critics correctly identify that the film, as released, does not grapple with allegations at all—the film received mostly negative reviews from critics who praised Jaafar Jackson's performance but criticized the story as 'sanitized'. Dan Reed's core argument—that telling an 'authentic story about Michael Jackson' while omitting serious molestation accusations is conceptually incoherent—has rhetorical force. At the same time, film defenders correctly note that the narrative legitimately ends in 1988, before the 1993 allegations, and the film centers on 'the makings of Michael'. Bohemian Rhapsody, which similarly drew 60% critic approval while earning 85% audience approval and grossing $910+ million, shows this pattern repeating—suggesting audiences and critics have different tolerance for hagiography in music biopics.

What each side omits: Critics largely avoid confronting why audiences gave the film an A- CinemaScore and 94-96% verified rating—a phenomenon that transcends partisan disagreement about Jackson himself. It suggests a segment of the public actively *prefers* celebratory, non-confrontational entertainment about beloved cultural figures. Family defenders, meanwhile, sidestep the harder question: even granting the legal constraint on Chandler, Reed noted 'there are many other stories that they could have done'—Wade Robson and James Safechuck's accounts in Leaving Neverland are not covered by the Chandler settlement, yet the film avoids engaging with them entirely.

What to watch: An appellate court overturned earlier dismissals of Robson and Safechuck's lawsuits, allowing both cases to move to jury trial in November 2026. That trial will introduce *new* legal and factual uncertainty to the public record, potentially reopening debate about Jackson's legacy just as this film's theatrical run concludes. Additionally, if a sequel materializes, the question of whether it will address post-1988 allegations will determine whether defenders' promise of later chapters was genuine or a deflection tactic.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning critics employ sarcasm and dark humor, with Bill Maher joking that movie showtimes mirrored 'victims'' experiences and equating the omission to whitewashing Columbus Day or Presidents' Day. Right-leaning family voices use defiant, populist rhetoric—'Sorry media, u don't get to control the narrative'—and gleeful anticipation that critics will have to 'eat crow' as box office proves audience preference.