The first wave of reactions to Michael is landing — and the conversation is split between what the film shows and what it leaves out.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and led by Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson, the biopic traces Jackson’s life from his childhood through the peak of his Bad era, stopping in 1988. That creative choice has become central to how the film is being received.

Early reviews have largely highlighted the performances, particularly Jaafar Jackson’s portrayal. Variety noted that his performance carries “uncanny” resemblance and stage presence, while Deadline described the film as a “polished, performance-driven portrait” focused on Jackson’s rise. Critics have also pointed to strong supporting turns from Colman Domingo and Nia Long as Joseph and Katherine Jackson.

At the same time, multiple outlets have raised concerns about the film’s scope. The Hollywood Reporter questioned whether ending the story in 1988 allows the film to avoid the most contested part of Jackson’s legacy, while BBC Culture noted that modern audiences approach the allegations with “heightened scrutiny,” making their absence difficult to ignore.

That omission is not accidental. Speaking during the press run, Domingo confirmed the timeline, saying, “The film takes place from the ’60s to 1988, so it does not go into the first allegations.” Long echoed that framing, adding that the story is told: “through his eyes.”

The decision has also fed into broader controversy around the project. Jackson, who died in 2009, faced multiple allegations of child sexual abuse during his lifetime, all of which he denied. He was acquitted in the 2005 criminal case People v. Jackson. His estate has continued to deny wrongdoing, including in response to more recent claims. (

Beyond reviews, reporting around the film’s production has added another layer. Deadline previously reported that Michael was at one stage close to four hours long, with discussions around potentially splitting the story into two films — a move that could allow a sequel to cover the later years.

For now, critics are treating Michael as a film defined as much by its boundaries as its content — praised for its performances and scale, but debated for where it draws the line. Whether a sequel materializes may ultimately shape how the full story is told, but the response to what’s been left out is already part of the film’s reception.