criterionforum.org

Never Cursed wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2026 4:01 am Seems very much like the people who were involved in the movie/friends with the filmmakers did not anticipate how distasteful it would (not unreasonably) come off to critics. It’s not often that I hope a film fails, but if this could bomb and end musical-artist biopics as a genre…

Whatever they're using to make estimates suggests that it's going to make a ton of money, with plans in place for a second film should those estimates pan out.

WSJ wrote:Despite largely negative early reviews, it is expected to open this weekend to more than $60 million in the U.S. and Canada and ultimately gross more than $500 million globally, with most of the revenue coming from overseas, according to people familiar with the matter.
If “Michael” is as successful as its backers hope, they plan to put a follow-up covering the rest of Jackson’s life into production quickly.
“I would expect that we will make a decision within a couple of weeks of the film opening,” said Adam Fogelson, chair of Lionsgate’s motion-picture group.

Zot! wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2026 1:55 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:14 am I wasn't expecting Michael to get a rousing reception, and I'm not surprised his diehard fans are proclaiming it as some kind of masterpiece, but I am surprised to see Owen Gleiberman and Questlove lavishing so much praise on it while brushing aside the elephant in the room.

Supposedly there are like 2 hours of footage laying about focusing on the later years that was cut. I think a fun project with any of these dreadfully boring music biopics would be a yin/yang two parter. Part 1 (Art) is a fawning hagiography focusing on why we love them. Part 2 (Artist) is a ruthless hit-piece exposing their vanity and misdeeds.

The problem: the film was funded by the Jackson estate and the second half (not cut, but unreleasable owing to a settlement that Jackson made with one of the abusers) was an extended attempt to depict Jackson as an innocent wrongfully accused of one of the worst of all crimes. I know that they're trying to launder his image, but I really do not understand why the Jackson family would even want to try and touch anything he did after 1992.

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2026 2:03 am

Zot! wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2026 1:55 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:14 am I wasn't expecting Michael to get a rousing reception, and I'm not surprised his diehard fans are proclaiming it as some kind of masterpiece, but I am surprised to see Owen Gleiberman and Questlove lavishing so much praise on it while brushing aside the elephant in the room.

Supposedly there are like 2 hours of footage laying about focusing on the later years that was cut. I think a fun project with any of these dreadfully boring music biopics would be a yin/yang two parter. Part 1 (Art) is a fawning hagiography focusing on why we love them. Part 2 (Artist) is a ruthless hit-piece exposing their vanity and misdeeds.

The problem: the film was funded by the Jackson estate and the second half (not cut, but unreleasable owing to a settlement that Jackson made with one of the abusers) was an extended attempt to depict Jackson as an innocent wrongfully accused of one of the worst of all crimes. I know that they're trying to launder his image, but I really do not understand why the Jackson family would even want to try and touch anything he did after 1992.

I imagine they could reuse quite a bit of the footage that was intended for the second part. The crazy part is that no one from the estate realized the terms of the 1993 settlement.

From what I’ve read, Janet Jackson is also completely MIA in this film, and she’s the sole member of the immediate family without a producing credit

beamish14 wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2026 2:47 am From what I’ve read, Janet Jackson is also completely MIA in this film, and she’s the sole member of the immediate family without a producing credit

Maybe she will be sole family member to produce a part 2... Their duet & video Scream came out in 1995.

Dan Reed doesn't hold anything back when giving his honest opinion on Michael getting made.

And as they discuss in the interview, Leaving Neverland was removed from HBO Max in a settlement with the estate and remains "unavailable."

Just received an (unsolicited) email from AMC with a plug to watch the trailer and buy a ticket (I only subscribe to IMAX screenings, which there's no actual mention of, but I do think there probably are for this)...anyway the copy is jaw-droppingly obtuse for the way it gaslights reality.

MICHAEL is the cinematic portrayal of the life and legacy of one of the most influential artists the world has ever known. The film tells the story of Michael Jackson’s life beyond the music, tracing his journey from the discovery of his extraordinary talent as the lead of the Jackson Five, to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fueled a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world. Highlighting both his life off-stage and some of the most iconic performances from his early solo career, the film gives audiences a front-row seat to Michael Jackson as never before. This is where his story begins.

I don't have much faith that Scary Movie 6 will be very good, but if it's going to be a battle of Michael movies, I am rooting for it to trounce this one in the box office department.

I've no doubt that Michael will be successful, but I hope it isn't. It's a terrible idea to make this film, least of all as it will just be a glossover.

And now this lawsuit. As mentioned, the same siblings just gave an extensive interview to the New York Times about the alleged abuse and the legal manipulation that the family claims they endured at the hands of the Jackson estate, long after Jackson's death in 2009.

In a classic case of the Streisand effect, leaving the child abuse allegations out of the biopic has brought them back into the spotlight. At least, that's all I see when the movie is mentioned in the media now.

It's official: Michael is a megahit. Lionsgate estimates it's on pace to collect more than $200 million worldwide in its opening weekend.

You just destroyed whatever little faith in humanity I may have had.

Current IMDb scores: audiences: 7.7/10 (23,500 votes), critics: 39/100 (49 votes)

hearthesilence wrote: Sun Apr 26, 2026 2:31 am It's official: Michael is a megahit. Lionsgate estimates it's on pace to collect more than $200 million worldwide in its opening weekend.

$217m and it hadn't even opened in Japan, where Jackson had a huge fan base.

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2026 9:16 am I've no doubt that Michael will be successful, but I hope it isn't. It's a terrible idea to make this film, least of all as it will just be a glossover.

Refn's Her Private Hell will be released in theaters on July 24

colinr0380 wrote: Fri May 01, 2026 4:43 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2026 9:16 am I've no doubt that Michael will be successful, but I hope it isn't. It's a terrible idea to make this film, least of all as it will just be a glossover.

Man this is a vibe too, he could have rocked this look

I didn't see a thread for Lowery's Mother Mary nor could I find it in this thread other than to note that it was coming. Have folks seen this? If so, what are your thoughts?

The Sheep Detectives is the most pleasant surprise of the year thus far, a Benoit Blanc in the barnyard murder mystery that's authentically well-written while still being totally appropriate for all ages and incredibly charming, funny and sweet throughout. This ranks with the Babe and Paddington films as being the rare children's movie that will delight kids and never once insult the intelligence of adult viewers either.

Apex is one of these action films that has generated one social media meme, which is Taron Egerton dancing manically to Go by the Chemical Brothers. It's basically a two hander where adrenaline junkie Charlize Theron (whose partner, Eric Bana died, in a typically risky climb) is being pursued by Taron Egerton's psycho in Australia. It's a fairly diverting ninety minutes which is helped by a better cast than the material would otherwise have.

I liked the first 50 minutes or so of Apex quite a lot. It's not doing anything new, it knows you know it knows, and it scores some points for lingering on things longer than you'd think and wringing a bit extra from them. When it's shot for spectacle it can be thrilling. When it gets intimate it's appropriately awkward; after the prologue, Theron, who just wants to be left alone, is both aloof and self-conscious about it. The camp conversation between her and Edgerton is fantastic, two people used to being alone conversationally stepping on each others' toes and then retreating.

And I like the confidence of its coda.

But for a movie that's so self-aware, it's weird that the cat/mouse hunt you hope for is cut so short, and most everything in the back half is riddled with contrivance. There's two movies in here that don't quite fit and for one of them the Egerton character is something of a symbolic obstacle, never a great thing. If it had just played out Most Dangerous Game-Deliverance style, meaning would have taken care of itself.

Intrigued to see Olivier Assayas's The Wizard of the Kremlin sometime this week.

Monterey Jack wrote: Sat May 09, 2026 12:41 am The Sheep Detectives is the most pleasant surprise of the year thus far, a Benoit Blanc in the barnyard murder mystery that's authentically well-written while still being totally appropriate for all ages and incredibly charming, funny and sweet throughout. This ranks with the Babe and Paddington films as being the rare children's movie that will delight kids and never once insult the intelligence of adult viewers either.

Great fun - weird to think it was written by the guy behind Chernobyl and The Last of Us!! Lovely hit ratio of gags but genuinely affecting (when the sheep consider what happens after life ends).