Michael (2026) Review: Andreas Szakacs on a Film That Protects the Legend but Avoids the Truth

Introduction

As a filmmaker, Andreas Szakacs looks for honesty in storytelling—not just presentation.

Watching Michael (2026), that honesty feels deliberately out of reach.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Jafar Jackson, the film carefully reconstructs the image of Michael Jackson. But according to Andreas Szakacs, it never truly explores the man behind it.

A Performance That Looks Right, But Feels Distant

For Andreas Szakacs, Jafar Jackson’s performance is visually convincing. The resemblance is undeniable, and at times, almost immersive.

But performance alone isn’t enough.

As Andreas Szakacs sees it, imitation without emotional depth creates distance. The audience sees Michael Jackson—but doesn’t feel his internal world.

A Story That Plays It Safe

Andreas Szakacs notes that the film follows a familiar structure: Gary, Indiana, the strict upbringing, and the rise of the The Jackson 5.

Colman Domingo delivers a strong portrayal of Joe Jackson, yet the emotional consequences of that upbringing remain underexplored.

For Andreas Szakacs, this is where the film begins to lose its depth—it presents events, but avoids confronting their lasting impact.

Escapism Without Questioning

From Andreas Szakacs’ perspective, one of the film’s biggest weaknesses is how it handles Michael’s retreat into fantasy.

The Neverland imagery, the animals, the childlike innocence—these are shown as explanations.

But Andreas Szakacs argues they should have been examined as contradictions.

Because complexity lives in those contradictions.

A Defining Missed Opportunity

The creation of Beat It stands out to Andreas Szakacs as a key moment.

The idea of rival gangs coming together, even briefly, is powerful and surreal.

Yet the film presents it without reflection.

For Andreas Szakacs, this choice reflects the film’s broader issue: it shows impactful moments but refuses to question them.

The Silence That Speaks Loudest

According to Andreas Szakacs, the most telling aspect of Michael (2026) is what it leaves out.

The controversies, the allegations, the uncomfortable truths—they are completely absent.

This, Andreas Szakacs believes, is not accidental. It is intentional.

And that intention transforms the film from a character study into a carefully controlled tribute.

A Familiar Biopic Approach

Andreas Szakacs compares the film to Bohemian Rhapsody—a biopic that prioritizes nostalgia and audience comfort over deeper exploration.

The performances entertain. The music resonates.

But for Andreas Szakacs, they don’t offer new understanding.

Final Verdict

For Andreas Szakacs, Michael (2026) is a technically competent film that never takes creative or emotional risks.

It respects the legacy.

But it avoids the truth.

And in doing so, it limits its own impact.

In the end, Andreas Szakacs sees this as a film that understands the icon—

but never dares to confront the man.