I think he was just careful about who he took it further with, while some are in denial. I have no doubt between his ****ed up family and that ****ed up industry - especially in the 70s, Michael was abused as a child. And the abused abuse.
Michael Jackson biopic from director Antoine Fuqua
14,346 Views |
130 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by Gnome Sayin
Hardcore Greg said:
So do we believe Michael Jackson really molested kids? Or is it possible he was basically a clinically insane child in a grown man's body, who liked sleep overs and play time because he missed out on all of that growing up and had a f'd up childhood?
Not excusing any of that behavior but did he just not lay a hand on kids like Macauley Culkin, Corey Feldman, Alfonso Riberio, Emmanuel Lewis etc? Or did he just practice self control around them and only molest unknown kids who didn't have the same media access child stars would have had?
Does anyone else want to believe he was just a man who lost his mind, but not a child molester? My 5 year old absolutely loves his music and I don't know how I'm ever going to break any of this to her
What a weird thing to be worked up about. Music is music. You like it, listen to it.
Me personally, it's painfully obvious that Jackson was a predator. I'm not going to see the movie, not strictly because for that, mostly because it just doesn't interest me.
But if Billie Jean comes on, you now damn well I'm going to turn it up.
Hardcore Greg said:
So do we believe Michael Jackson really molested kids? Or is it possible he was basically a clinically insane child in a grown man's body, who liked sleep overs and play time because he missed out on all of that growing up and had a f'd up childhood?
Not excusing any of that behavior but did he just not lay a hand on kids like Macauley Culkin, Corey Feldman, Alfonso Riberio, Emmanuel Lewis etc? Or did he just practice self control around them and only molest unknown kids who didn't have the same media access child stars would have had?
Does anyone else want to believe he was just a man who lost his mind, but not a child molester? My 5 year old absolutely loves his music and I don't know how I'm ever going to break any of this to her
I have no idea if he is innocent or not, but I don't think the fact he didn't rape the famous kids is a sign of innocence. It's possible he took advantage of those that were less well of because he knew the public would be less likely to believe them, they could be paid off, etc. Its also possible he did mess around with them, too, but it is in the best interest for their careers to not say anything. Or maybe he just took advantage of the kids who were most vulnerable. I do think it's also possible he was just a strange dude trying to live out the childhood he never got. I really have no idea
As far as telling your kids, my daughter loved MJ music still does. We never talked about his personal life, though, just like we've never discussed Taylor Swift's, or Noah Kahan, or Axl Rose, etc. just listen to the music.
Agree. His music is still in my playlist and that will never change. But he was a freak and an abuser. I get that not everyone can separate the art and artist, and I don't blame them. And I don't do it 100% of the time either. But I'm a genX child of the 80s and this music was a part of my childhood, so I'll never ignore it.
‘MICHAEL’ debuts with 27% on Rotten Tomatoes.
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) April 21, 2026
Read our review: https://t.co/lOS1Ah4IaU pic.twitter.com/R14lge2bHX
Ouch
Siskel and Ebert give it 2 underage balloon knots down
The movie ends in 1988. That's like having an OJ biopic that ends in 1992.
I was born in '76 and grew up listening to MJ all throughout the '80's. What kid that age didn't? I still remember going over to a friend's house specifically to listen to the Thriller album when it came out and he got it right away. I mentally separate the man from his music and I still listen to his music (that Thriller album is still incredible). I should be right in the wheelhouse of potential viewers for this movie.
But I have zero interest in seeing it, and the trailer does nothing for me. I think A) we're past the point of relevancy for this to be a huge blockbuster, and B) while most people can separate the man from his music, it still doesn't mean they want to support the man by going to see an a**-kissing biography of him
But I have zero interest in seeing it, and the trailer does nothing for me. I think A) we're past the point of relevancy for this to be a huge blockbuster, and B) while most people can separate the man from his music, it still doesn't mean they want to support the man by going to see an a**-kissing biography of him
Quote:
I think A) we're past the point of relevancy for this to be a huge blockbuster
Based on early international numbers, this is not the case.
Brian Earl Spilner said:Quote:
I think A) we're past the point of relevancy for this to be a huge blockbuster
Based on early international numbers, this is not the case.
I could certainly be completely wrong, I forget that pre-sales can give us a good estimate. In which case I'll be curious to see the domestic vs international numbers. But also, not to nitpick, but what are we considering "blockbuster" numbers? And what are the pre-sales right now?
FL_Ag1998 said:Brian Earl Spilner said:Quote:
I think A) we're past the point of relevancy for this to be a huge blockbuster
Based on early international numbers, this is not the case.
I could certainly be completely wrong, I forget that pre-sales can give us a good estimate. In which case I'll be curious to see the domestic vs international numbers. But also, not to nitpick, but what are we considering "blockbuster" numbers? And what are the pre-sales right now?
Per deadline, it's north of $60 million for its first three days, which would exceed the $60m made by Straight Outta Compton and $51.5m Bohemian Rhapsody
https://deadline.com/2026/04/michael-box-office-projection-1236771788/
And at the risk of sounding vaguely racist, never deny the power of black people to show up in droves for a movie that's completely about black people.
I'll watch it, I don't think I'll go to the theater to see it, but I'll watch it eventually.
Lol, thanks
Seen a lot of tweets like this today.
My guess is this is gonna be another case of low critic score with high audience score, like Mario Galaxy.
I think everyone knows the movie cuts off before it gets to the allegations (which will likely be addressed in the sequel), so it seems odd to dock points for that.
Plus it's from the producer of Bohemian Rhapsody, so you know going in exactly what you're getting.
We’ve legit lost the plot. I honestly have zero idea what people are looking for these days but there needs to be a major shift in criticism. The movie I saw was well written, well directed, beautifully shot, insanely well performed and the sound was amazing. Are we “film”… https://t.co/m0goTZ3JSm
— Jones Vibes (@jonesvibesonly) April 21, 2026
My guess is this is gonna be another case of low critic score with high audience score, like Mario Galaxy.
I think everyone knows the movie cuts off before it gets to the allegations (which will likely be addressed in the sequel), so it seems odd to dock points for that.
Plus it's from the producer of Bohemian Rhapsody, so you know going in exactly what you're getting.
I mean, even if you ignore all the allegations, the movie could still be a very deep look into the makings of a chiid star who becomes the most well known artist of all time at the expense of his childhood, leading him to hate his dad and make all kinds of insane choices and purchases and try to find happiness. By 1988, he had already had enough surgery to look like this
as compared to his 10 years earlier.
as compared to his 10 years earlier.
CharleyKerfeld said:
The movie ends in 1988. That's like having an OJ biopic that ends in 1992.
A film about Hitler and his love for dogs?
NoahAg said:CharleyKerfeld said:
The movie ends in 1988. That's like having an OJ biopic that ends in 1992.
A film about Hitler and his love for dogs?
It reminds me being a kid, we had a set of 1972 World Book Encyclopedias that glowingly sang the praises of current President Richard Nixon.
J’ai pas vu ça depuis Avenger Endgame pic.twitter.com/tCMNhPB7eh
— syl🦦 (@sylcine_) April 21, 2026
I’ve been reading the discourse around Michael, and even without seeing it yet, I have a pretty good sense of what the issue is.
— Scott Menzel (@ScottDMenzel) April 21, 2026
A lot of critics seem to want the film to be something it’s not. They’re looking for a deeper exploration of the backstory and the controversy, rather…
I've been reading the discourse around Michael, and even without seeing it yet, I have a pretty good sense of what the issue is.
A lot of critics seem to want the film to be something it's not. They're looking for a deeper exploration of the backstory and the controversy, rather than a more streamlined, accessible version of the story.
On the flip side, general audiences often just want to hear the music, watch the performances, and have a good time.
I don't think either perspective is wrong, but that disconnect between expectations is where the divide comes from.
More broadly, I think it's a real issue that many people in my field struggle to engage with a film on its own terms, instead of judging it against what they think it should be, especially when it comes to movies that are centered around real people.
I remember the same debate around The Greatest Showman, which I personally love. A common criticism was that P.T. Barnum was a terrible person and that the film glossed over that reality.
But that was never the point of the movie. It wasn't trying to be a historically accurate portrait. Instead, it was a musical about dreams, identity, and embracing what makes you different.
I think this kind of mismatch in expectations is a big reason why there's such a growing divide between critics and general audiences.
At the same time, it goes both ways. Critics often champion more awards-driven films that can be inaccessible, and general audiences sometimes go in expecting something different and come away disappointed.
The disconnect isn't one-sided. This is happening across both groups.
Quote:
More broadly, I think it's a real issue that many people in my field struggle to engage with a film on its own terms, instead of judging it against what they think it should be, especially when it comes to movies that are centered around real people.
Huge, HUGE issue with movie critics IMO.
And I disgree with him that this is a two-way issue, and there's blame to be placed on the audience. That feels like a little bit of a cop-out just to avoid putting all of the blame where it should be - on the critics. I think in most cases where audiences walk away feeling they were mislead about the movie it's when the advertising misrepresents the movie.
It was also originally meant to be something else, with a rewritten third act. So that may add to the feeling of it feeling like nothing but a greatest hits reel.
IGN had an interesting review. Sounds like the makeup for his dad was distracting and limited the performance, and by the end of the film he was very one-note. Also the Michael mannerisms and voice (and a lot of ADR) made it feel like a caricature rather than a real attempt at a performance.
Music biopics are also kind of interesting. They're a dime a dozen. Most scratch the itch of "I got to hear that song I like" but I can't blame critics for wanting a little more than that.
And I think the Jackson family was very involved so if it's all pretty whitewashed, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
IGN had an interesting review. Sounds like the makeup for his dad was distracting and limited the performance, and by the end of the film he was very one-note. Also the Michael mannerisms and voice (and a lot of ADR) made it feel like a caricature rather than a real attempt at a performance.
Music biopics are also kind of interesting. They're a dime a dozen. Most scratch the itch of "I got to hear that song I like" but I can't blame critics for wanting a little more than that.
And I think the Jackson family was very involved so if it's all pretty whitewashed, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
rhutton125 said:
It was also originally meant to be something else, with a rewritten third act. So that may add to the feeling of it feeling like nothing but a greatest hits reel.
IGN had an interesting review. Sounds like the makeup for his dad was distracting and limited the performance, and by the end of the film he was very one-note. Also the Michael mannerisms and voice (and a lot of ADR) made it feel like a caricature rather than a real attempt at a performance.
Music biopics are also kind of interesting. They're a dime a dozen. Most scratch the itch of "I got to hear that song I like" but I can't blame critics for wanting a little more than that.
And I think the Jackson family was very involved so if it's all pretty whitewashed, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
JCA1 said:Head Ninja In Charge said:
Just need everyone to look at the track listing for Thriller again. The absolute, most pristine example of all-killer-no-filler. It's honestly unbelievable. Look at tracks 3-8 - any one of those would be a career record for 95% of every other artist and he and Quincy Jones just handed it over as a buffet.
Separating artist from the art applies the best to Michael Jackson because holy ****ing ****, he made Thriller. Thriller.
This movie might be trash but the bangers will make it watchable.
That's why it's my favorite Toto album.
Beat It has my favorite Eddie Van Halen solo...
It's a tough story to tell because there was no redemptive curve to his life. Monumental success and set a new standard for pop music, but with a tragic end that dragged on for the last couple decades of his life in front of the cameras and media.
Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Freddie Mercury, Elton John all had some degree of redemptive curves to their life stories, so those made for better films.
Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Freddie Mercury, Elton John all had some degree of redemptive curves to their life stories, so those made for better films.
Yeah, there really isn't a redemptive curve for kid diddlers. Then the way he exited this world just fit right in to the "this dude was a complete ****ing weirdo" image he had established.
I think this movie will make a hojillion dollars overseas. When he dangled the baby over the hotel balcony and there were thousands of fans outside his hotel, I remember thinking "it's still thriller level mania for him in 2002?"
The story of Joe bullying him into including his brothers in the Pepsi campaign and tour, rather than allowing Michael to tour as a solo artist is really awful. He was at the height of his fame and power and he still couldn't stand up to his father.
The story of Joe bullying him into including his brothers in the Pepsi campaign and tour, rather than allowing Michael to tour as a solo artist is really awful. He was at the height of his fame and power and he still couldn't stand up to his father.
Joan Wilder said:
I think this movie will make a hojillion dollars overseas. When he dangled the baby over the hotel balcony and there were thousands of fans outside his hotel, I remember thinking "it's still thriller level mania for him in 2002?"
The story of Joe bullying him into including his brothers in the Pepsi campaign and tour, rather than allowing Michael to tour as a solo artist is really awful. He was at the height of his fame and power and he still couldn't stand up to his father.
I saw him on that tour. I was in the 6h grade. Jermaine had a solo album out as well. It was nowhere near Thriller, but he did do a couple songs....and of course, I saw Tito!
Got roped into seeing an early screening of this tonight with someone I know. I didn't want to give money to this thing, but it's a free ticket so I figure that technically doesn't break my rule, haha. I'm both dreading it and morbidly curious. Will report back.
#Michael is aiming to set the record for biggest music biopic opening weekend with a $70 million-plus debut.
— Variety (@Variety) April 22, 2026
Some exhibitors are predicting the final number will be closer to $80 million, far above 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” ($51 million) and 2015’s “Straight Outta Compton”… pic.twitter.com/DncB8L5gYJ
Listen to Van Lathan on Bill Simmons today.
I agree fully with his analysis:
- great performances
- should have focused on Thriller
- curiously quite lacking
- miniseries is better
AND
Van, the leftist, and plenty of rightists like Ian Carroll believe Michael is fully innocent. TMZ did delve deep and came to that conclusion as well. There is significant evidence was innocent, and I don't want a ban so I'll just say I agree with the details Ian has put out there
I agree fully with his analysis:
- great performances
- should have focused on Thriller
- curiously quite lacking
- miniseries is better
AND
Van, the leftist, and plenty of rightists like Ian Carroll believe Michael is fully innocent. TMZ did delve deep and came to that conclusion as well. There is significant evidence was innocent, and I don't want a ban so I'll just say I agree with the details Ian has put out there
My biggest complaint about this movie is that it ends. Admittedly it feels like half a movie, but the movie at least acknowledges this with a "His story continues" title card.
Jaafar Jackson was absolutely fantastic as MJ.
If you're a fan of MJ's music, it's a guaranteed good time.
There's a lot of huge time jumps and stuff is kept pretty surface level, but I went in expecting as much.
Bummed we didn't get to hear anything off the Bad album except Bad, which is probably my least favorite MJ song, but seeing Jaafar perform it on stage was pretty awesome. He was absolutely channeling MJ for that entire song.
Very curious to see how much of a disconnect there is in the critics and audience scores for this one.
Jaafar Jackson was absolutely fantastic as MJ.
If you're a fan of MJ's music, it's a guaranteed good time.
There's a lot of huge time jumps and stuff is kept pretty surface level, but I went in expecting as much.
Bummed we didn't get to hear anything off the Bad album except Bad, which is probably my least favorite MJ song, but seeing Jaafar perform it on stage was pretty awesome. He was absolutely channeling MJ for that entire song.
Very curious to see how much of a disconnect there is in the critics and audience scores for this one.
Jeremy Jahns has been hit or miss for me lately, but this review is almost perfectly in line with my thoughts.
There's no way this is a 36% on Rotten Tomatoes - like, not even close - but it's also about as sterile and paint-by-numbers as a music biopic can possibly get.
Personally, I'd probably rank it somewhere in the high 60s?
It's just so incredibly over-the-top in how much Michael is portrayed as perfect, innocent, wide-eyed Pop Jesus. It also features more montages than I've seen in any movie ever. Given all of that, considering it was also made in conjunction with the Jackson estate, it just comes across as pure, somewhat soulless Michael Jackson propaganda from beginning to end. Granted, during the time period portrayed (1968-1988), any big controversies/allegations would have admittedly felt forced. I'm not saying the movie demanded any of that (though, the imminent sequel - yes). It's just that it's *so* blatantly a two-hour commercial for Michael Jackson: Perfect Musical Genius that it feels a little icky and far overcompensating in that direction.
All of that said...
- While Jaafar Jackson looks nothing like Michael in the face (though he does more so after the nose job), he absolutely nails the voice and especially the dance movies. Pretty jaw-dropping in both regards.
- The actor who plays a young Michael during the Jackson 5 days (which surprisingly takes up the entire first act) is incredible. That kid's a star.
- IMO, Coleman Domingo gives the best performance of the movie as Joe Jackson. Just a fantastic, menacing job all around.
- The musical performances are electric. And utterly spot on. I saw multiple people in the theater moving and swaying in their seats to them, a few people were even clapping, etc. Though, my favorite performance wasn't on a stage, rather it was a sequence when Michael first dances as the Michael we know today, in a warehouse, performing Beat It for the first time. It's such a raw, cool, stripped down scene, that I wish the rest of the movie would have emulated it more.
So... yeah. Not nearly as bad as the critics are saying, but not all that great either, though it does have its moments. If anything, it goes out on a high for sure, to the point where our audience broke out into applause at the end, indicating to me that it's definitely going to be a hit among the general public, at least.
Personally, I'd probably rank it somewhere in the high 60s?
It's just so incredibly over-the-top in how much Michael is portrayed as perfect, innocent, wide-eyed Pop Jesus. It also features more montages than I've seen in any movie ever. Given all of that, considering it was also made in conjunction with the Jackson estate, it just comes across as pure, somewhat soulless Michael Jackson propaganda from beginning to end. Granted, during the time period portrayed (1968-1988), any big controversies/allegations would have admittedly felt forced. I'm not saying the movie demanded any of that (though, the imminent sequel - yes). It's just that it's *so* blatantly a two-hour commercial for Michael Jackson: Perfect Musical Genius that it feels a little icky and far overcompensating in that direction.
All of that said...
- While Jaafar Jackson looks nothing like Michael in the face (though he does more so after the nose job), he absolutely nails the voice and especially the dance movies. Pretty jaw-dropping in both regards.
- The actor who plays a young Michael during the Jackson 5 days (which surprisingly takes up the entire first act) is incredible. That kid's a star.
- IMO, Coleman Domingo gives the best performance of the movie as Joe Jackson. Just a fantastic, menacing job all around.
- The musical performances are electric. And utterly spot on. I saw multiple people in the theater moving and swaying in their seats to them, a few people were even clapping, etc. Though, my favorite performance wasn't on a stage, rather it was a sequence when Michael first dances as the Michael we know today, in a warehouse, performing Beat It for the first time. It's such a raw, cool, stripped down scene, that I wish the rest of the movie would have emulated it more.
So... yeah. Not nearly as bad as the critics are saying, but not all that great either, though it does have its moments. If anything, it goes out on a high for sure, to the point where our audience broke out into applause at the end, indicating to me that it's definitely going to be a hit among the general public, at least.
I agree with your analysis.
Part 2 could be one of the most fascinating bio pics of all time, but the pro-Michael script I would write would, oh vey, never get financed.
Part 2 could be one of the most fascinating bio pics of all time, but the pro-Michael script I would write would, oh vey, never get financed.
Featured Stories
See All
14:24
1h ago
1.1k
Noah Mikhail aspires to become an every-down linebacker
by Billy Liucci
13:27
2h ago
1.1k
Boston 'That Kid' Kellner's freshman campaign has 'flown by'
by Ryan Brauninger
6:35
2h ago
2.3k
5:02
5h ago
2.5k
Charean Williams reviews A&M's 10-man NFL Draft class
by David Nuño
5:05
3h ago
1.3k