"Michael": a biopic that is afraid of its own hero

      Don't get me wrong, I generally liked "Michael." The scale that accompanied Jackson during his lifetime is conveyed really well — one can't help but feel a lump in the throat from this excitement. But the structure and content raise questions.

      I don't want to be a killjoy, but it lacked details. Michael himself wasn't fully revealed — his relationships with his father, brothers, and peers. Those details that "humanized" Jackson were omitted, so to speak. Surely this was done intentionally, I won't argue, but you can see a beautiful and young Michael in his own music videos. When you go to a biopic, you want to see a portrayal of a life, I emphasize, of a person.

      Many critics wrote that the film is colorless, devoid of artistic concept, "very average," and so on. On one hand — yes. It can't be called either a masterpiece or a film about the "life" of Michael Jackson. Yes, we are told how he grows up in strictness. Yes, we see a cruel father. Yes, we are shown Michael's process of separation through the lens of his creativity. But all of this is presented in such shades (forgive this amateur pun) that you don't even have time to get emotionally involved.

      Critics' ratings are harsh: the film has only 38% freshness on Rotten Tomatoes, and the BBC called it "a cloying, reverent biopic that removes everything that could be called dramatic." Empire even writes that it is "a costumed imitation without an artistic point of view." And there is certainly some truth to that.

      The film ends in 1988 — five years before the first accusations against Jackson, and in my opinion, thank God for that. Because everything that happened after 1993 — let it remain for documentaries to digest.

      But there is something in "Michael" that truly resonates. You are touched by the main character himself. Rather, the actor — Jaafar Jackson, Michael's older brother Jermaine Jackson's son. This is his debut role, and in terms of plasticity, mimicry, and behavior, it's hard to find fault. The acting work is indeed done on a grand scale, and the final version turned out to be extremely convincing. At certain moments, the line between actor and icon blurs. Just for this, it's worth going to see the film. In the moment, you really feel like you are watching a young Jackson, who simply and calmly watches Charlie Chaplin movies with his mother and eats ice cream.

      But why wasn't the script at least a little more developed? Is the thought that fans will be satisfied with this so deeply ingrained? Although, of course, if you look at the box office — $900 million against a budget of $200 million — the thought isn't entirely unfounded. The film has already become the highest-grossing in Lionsgate's history, surpassing "The Hunger Games" (18+) and "Twilight" (18+), and is about to break the record of "Bohemian Rhapsody" (18+) as the most profitable musical biopic in history. But still.

      They could have talked about leaving Motown. About the fact that Off the Wall is far from Michael's first solo album — it is the first that brought Jackson worldwide fame. About Michael's attitude towards religion, global issues, and charity. There are at least a dozen more moments that could be included. The film showed everything in passing, yet it is from such details that the personality of this great man, known worldwide, was formed. Instead, we get a 120-minute trailer-collage, or a playlist.

      But you know, I still recommend this film for viewing. It's already been said about the authenticity and completeness — it's not there. The film "Michael" should be viewed as a reminder of what Michael was like on stage. And as a showcase for Jaafar Jackson, who single-handedly carries a two-hour musical show on his shoulders. This is not a film about life. This is a film about the music of Michael Jackson. And if you are ready for that — go see it, you won't regret it.