Michael: Is The Gap Between Critics & Fans Bigger Than Ever?

Just weeks after Michael landed in cinemas and smashed box office expectations, Lionsgate is already openly discussing a second film, with the movie’s closing words, “His Story Continues,” now feeling less like a playful tease and more like a genuine promise.

While a sequel to the Michael Jackson biopic has not officially been green lit, the fact it is already being actively discussed says everything about just how big Michael has become.

What is surprising is just how divided people seem to be about it.

At the time of writing, Michael has a low 39 percent critics score on Rotten Tomatoes, while audiences have rallied behind the film almost unanimously, pushing its audience score to a staggering 97 percent.

A very significant gap that you don’t usually see, even amongst some of Christopher Nolan’s most mind-bending films. Making you wonder if critics and audiences have somehow watched two completely different movies.

And in ways, they have.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and led by an almost astoundingly accurate performance from Jaafar Jackson, the nephew of the man himself, Michael gives modern audiences exactly what many fans wanted from a major Jackson biopic.

The performances capture the huge real life spectacle that could only be made by a once-in-a-generation performer, while the production feels every bit as polished and ambitious as you would expect from a film of this scale. From his early Jackson 5 years to the making of thriller and bad, the film is an unapologetic celebration of the 80s icon.

And audiences clearly loved it.

For millions of people, myself included, who never got the chance to experience Michael Jackson during his height, Michael feels like more than just another music biopic.

For many, it is an opportunity to experience the man, in his purest form and witness the sheer scale of the legend. This naturally creates an emotional connection that goes far beyond what is happening on screen.

For critics, though, the conversation feels very different, because Michael is not really trying to tell you the full story of Jackson life. Or at least not yet.

The film ends in 1988, following the release of the Bad album, focusing almost entirely on the mythology that made Jackson the biggest artists on the planet.

This of course means that huge parts of the story are missing.

From a purely biopic point of view, it’s a slightly unsatisfying half of a story, carefully curated and structured to avoid tarnishing its subject – namely the controversies that would come to define much of Jackson’s later public life.

For critics a lot of reviews are not simply criticising what Michael includes. They have criticised what it leaves out, arguing that a biopic should include everything about its subject and not stop before the story becomes uncomfortable.

And maybe that is what makes the sequel conversation so fascinating.

If Lionsgate really do decide to move forward with a second film, there is only so much longer the story can avoid the darker chapters of Jackson. A sequel would almost certainly move into the Dangerous era, Neverland Ranch, the 1993 sexual abuse allegations, the 2005 child molestation trial, and Jackson’s increasingly isolated later years.

This leads to bigger questions. Will audiences get behind that film? Or will they get another carefully managed celebration?

Because one thing repeatedly pointed out by critics is that Michael is not an independent portrait. A film with the blessing and heavy involvement of Jackson’s estate and family, who ultimately, are always going to protect Michael Jackson’s legacy.

And maybe the clearest proof of that divide comes when you look at Leaving Neverland. That documentary holds 98 percent critics score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Its audience score? Just 26 percent. Almost the exact reverse of Michael.

Because if Michael has proved anything, it is that audiences are not just showing up for the story. They are showing up for the music, the memories and the man who, for so many, still feels larger than life.

Words by Andrew Connolly